Re: [RFC][PATCH 11/12] KVM: introduce new API for getting/switching

[Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>]

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 02:53:54PM +0900, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> (2010/05/11 12:43), Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 10:08:21PM +0900, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> >>+How to Get
> >>+
> >>+Before calling this, you have to set the slot member of kvm_user_dirty_log
> >>+to indicate the target memory slot.
> >>+
> >>+struct kvm_user_dirty_log {
> >>+	__u32 slot;
> >>+	__u32 flags;
> >>+	__u64 dirty_bitmap;
> >>+	__u64 dirty_bitmap_old;
> >>+};
> >>+
> >>+The addresses will be set in the paired members: dirty_bitmap and _old.
> >
> >Why not pass the bitmap address to the kernel, instead of having the
> >kernel allocate it. Because apparently you plan to do that in a new
> >generation anyway?
> 
> Yes, we want to make qemu allocate and free bitmaps in the future.
> But currently, those are strictly tied with memory slot registration and
> changing it in one patch set is really difficult.
> 
> Anyway, we need kernel side allocation mechanism to keep the current
> GET_DIRTY_LOG api. I don't mind not exporting kernel allocated bitmaps
> in this patch set and later introducing a bitmap registration mechanism
> in another patch set.
> 
> As this RFC is suggesting, kernel side double buffering infrastructure is
> designed as general as possible and adding a new API like SWITCH can be done
> naturally.
> 
> >
> >Also, why does the kernel need to know about different bitmaps?
> 
> Because we need to support current GET API. We don't have any way to get
> a new bitmap in the case of GET and we don't want to do_mmap() every time
> for GET.
> 
> >
> >One alternative would be:
> >
> >KVM_SWITCH_DIRTY_LOG passing the address of a bitmap. If the active
> >bitmap was clean, it returns 0, no switch performed. If the active
> >bitmap was dirty, the kernel switches to the new bitmap and returns 1.
> >
> >And the responsability of cleaning the new bitmap could also be left
> >for userspace.
> >
> 
> That is a beautiful approach but we can do that only when we give up using
> GET api.
> 
> 
> I follow you and Avi's advice about that kind of maintenance policy!
> What do you think?

If you introduce a switch ioctl that frees the bitmap vmalloc'ed by the
current set_memory_region (if its not freed already), after pointing the
memslot to the user supplied one, it should be fine?