Re: [kvm-ppc-devel] RFC/patch portability: split kvm_vm_ioctl v2

[Avi Kivity <avi-atKUWr5tajBWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>]

Carsten Otte wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote:
>   
>> Carsten Otte wrote:
>>     
>>> Avi Kivity wrote:
>>>       
>>>> Why aren't memory slots common too?  Only their number is different, 
>>>> while the implementation is the same.
>>>>         
>>> Your approach makes the meaning of memory slot somewhat useless on 
>>> s390, if that one may be sparse and may be result of different 
>>> allocations: On x86, there has to be one memory slot per allocation, 
>>> versus on s390 there has to be exactly one memory slot with multiple 
>>> allocations behind.
>>>       
>> No, a memory slot can span multiple backing stores.  But it must be 
>> contiguous in both the host userspace and guest physical address spaces.
>>     
> I was not preceise enough: I meant to state that x86 demands one 
> memory slot per contiguous allocation. But with your "s390 has only 
> one memory slot" idea, this introduces a severe restriction for us: 
> our "single memory slot" does not need to be contiguous, neither in 
> guest physical nor in host userspace. All we need, is a certain 
> 1:1+offset relationship between guest physical and host user. Page 
> size, backing, sparse are all variable.
>   

Well, a slot may be sparse (though I don't think that's supported now).

To me, a slot is exactly a guest offset, size, and host offset.  How the 
memory is populated (or not) is up to the user.

> Izik's idea, at least how I understood him, makes the best of both 
> worlds: we keep above addressing relationship intact, and have 
> multiple memory slots for all architectures.
>   

Can you explain the idea again.  Izik's not here so I can't ask him.

>   
>>> For userspace that means, with your approach it has to do total 
>>> different memory setup for different archs _if_ it wants to use 
>>> multiple allocations and/or sparse:
>>> - on x86 it does allocations to random userspace address, and 
>>> registers each of them as memory slot
>>> - on s390 it does allocations to a specific address layout similar to 
>>> the guest, and registers only one memory slot for the whole thing
>>>
>>> With Izik's approach however, this is transparent to userspace: it has 
>>> multiple memory slots, one per allocation. Regardless of the CPU 
>>> architecture.
>>>       
>> You can do this with the current memory slots as well.  Although I'm 
>> feeling that I misunderstood Izik's idea.  I'll go talk to him.
>>     
> No we can't: because current memory slots don't have a permanent 
> relationship between user and guest physical addresses that we do need 
> on s390. We cannot guarantee that over multiple slots, and we cannot 
> keep the guest from addressing memory around the memory slots unless 
> we refuse to use more than only one slot which has to start at guest 
> physical zero.
>   

Well, you could allow multiple slots and return -EINVAL if they don't 
fit the "host = guest + offset formula".  I'm not sure how that's 
different from one big, possibly sparse, slot.

But again, I don't think I understood Izik's idea, so I'm not sure 
what's the alternative.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/