From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NN4Q2-0002By-7U
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 22 Dec 2009 08:04:54 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NN4Px-0002Ak-Ft
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 22 Dec 2009 08:04:53 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=38317 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NN4Px-0002Af-B6
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 22 Dec 2009 08:04:49 -0500
Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]:11295)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <paul@codesourcery.com>)
	id 1NN4Px-0004br-8m
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 22 Dec 2009 08:04:49 -0500
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([38.113.113.100])
	by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <paul@codesourcery.com>) id 1NN4Pv-0007A1-RS
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 22 Dec 2009 08:04:48 -0500
From: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [SeaBIOS] [PATCH 0/8] option rom loading
	overhaul.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:04:41 +0000
References: <1261134074-11795-1-git-send-email-kraxel@redhat.com>
	<4B2E3E96.7090708@codemonkey.ws> <4B2E40C7.2080908@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B2E40C7.2080908@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <200912221304.42114.paul@codesourcery.com>
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>

> > We should just qemu_ram_alloc() that memory regardless of whether we
> > every map it into the guest.  Since roms can be large, we want to send
> > their contents over during the live part of migration.  If we use
> > qemu_ram_alloc(), we get that for free.
> 
> Currently live migration uses ram_addrs, so this would work.  But
> ram_addrs have no meaning in the guest and thus depend on qemu
> implementation details.  IMO we should switch live migration to use
> guest physical addresses, which would require a different migration
> implementation for roms.  Most of it can be shared with ram, though.

Ram allocations should be associated with a device. The VMState stuff this 
should make this fairly straightforward.

Guest address space mappings are a completely separate issue. The device 
should be migrating the mappings (directly or via a PCI BAR) as part of its 
state migration. The ram regions might not be mapped into guest address space 
at all.

Paul