From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42586) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dBGUF-0002pE-Jx for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 May 2017 04:08:44 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dBGUA-00019e-JJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 May 2017 04:08:43 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:36220) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dBGUA-00019Y-Dh for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 May 2017 04:08:38 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 66B4D7F4A5 for ; Thu, 18 May 2017 08:08:37 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 09:08:34 +0100 From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" Message-ID: <20170518080833.GA2079@work-vm> References: <20170517165810.18164-1-dgilbert@redhat.com> <20170517165810.18164-3-dgilbert@redhat.com> <87bmqrb7ui.fsf@secure.mitica> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87bmqrb7ui.fsf@secure.mitica> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2] postcopy: Require RAMBlocks that are whole pages List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Juan Quintela Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, peterx@redhat.com, lvivier@redhat.com * Juan Quintela (quintela@redhat.com) wrote: > "Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git)" wrote: > > From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" > > > > It turns out that it's legal to create a VM with RAMBlocks that aren't > > a multiple of the pagesize in use; e.g. a 1025M main memory using > > 2M host pages. That breaks postcopy's atomic placement of pages, > > so disallow it. > > > > Signed-off-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert > > Reviewed-by: Juan Quintela Thanks > > } > > > > /* We don't support postcopy with shared RAM yet */ > > - if (qemu_ram_foreach_block(test_range_shared, NULL)) { > > + if (qemu_ram_foreach_block(test_ramblock_postcopiable, NULL)) { > > When I was looking at this code, I still don't know why > qemu_ram_foreach_block() don't pass the block directly. It needs it > almost all callers. > > When I saw it I was about to change it, but got sidetracked on other > things :-p I think originally it passed very little information at all, and that RAMBlocks were these mystical things no one outside exec.c was really supposed to know about. Dave > Later, Juan. -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilbert@redhat.com / Manchester, UK