From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46816) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VqkaT-0001qq-B5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 09:16:35 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VqkaL-0002ix-LJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 09:16:29 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:33278) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VqkaL-0002ic-Bz for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 09:16:21 -0500 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rBBEGKgv029366 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 09:16:20 -0500 Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 16:20:00 +0200 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20131211142000.GA23355@redhat.com> References: <1385401393-14291-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <20131128102652.GA24261@redhat.com> <52A714AC.3050703@redhat.com> <20131210150542.GA27998@amt.cnet> <20131210172144.GA29151@amt.cnet> <20131210210241.GC8476@redhat.com> <20131211134118.GB14071@amt.cnet> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131211134118.GB14071@amt.cnet> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH rebased for-1.8] i386: pc: align gpa<->hpa on 1GB boundary (v6) List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Marcelo Tosatti Cc: Paolo Bonzini , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 11:41:18AM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 11:02:41PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 03:21:44PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 01:05:42PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 02:18:36PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > > > Il 28/11/2013 11:26, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto: > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 06:43:13PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > > > >> v2: condition enablement of new mapping to new machine types (Paolo) > > > > > >> v3: fix changelog > > > > > >> v4: rebase > > > > > >> v5: ensure alignment of piecetwo on 2MB GPA (Igor) > > > > > >> do not register zero-sized piece-one (Igor) > > > > > >> v6: fix memory leak (Igor) > > > > > >> fix integer overflow (Igor) > > > > > >> > > > > > >> ---- > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Align guest physical address and host physical address > > > > > >> beyond guest 4GB on a 1GB boundary. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Otherwise 1GB TLBs cannot be cached for the range. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Signed-off-by: Marcelo Tosatti > > > > > >> [Reorganize code, keep same logic. - Paolo] > > > > > >> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini > > > > > >> --- > > > > > > > > > > > > Applied, thanks. > > > > > > > > > > As discussed offlist, I'm not sure anymore that this is the right > > > > > approach to the problem. No doubt it is very clever, in that it is > > > > > absolutely transparent to the guest. However, the non-contiguous > > > > > mapping of ram_addr_t makes it more complex to associate the right NUMA > > > > > policy to the ranges. > > > > > > > > Please explain what is the difference, and why the complexity does not > > > > exist with non-contiguous mapping of ram_addr_t. > > > > > > You are right - it forces the 1GB page which contains the hole > > > to be on the same NUMA node as the tail 1GB page - otherwise > > > incorrect NUMA assignment is not possible. > > > > What does this phrase mean? > > > > Are we all in agreement that we want this patch, in addition to > > resizing below 4g memory? > > It means that its necessary to expose that 3-4GB physical memory region > in QEMU belongs to the same node (that is, guest must be aware that > 3-3.75GB and the tail of RAM are on the same node). > > So the problem Paolo mentions is fixable. Okay so Marcelo - do you ack this patch for 2.0? Paolo - do you re-ack this patch for 2.0? Thanks, -- MST