From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:35440) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gmkK2-0005Ws-PL for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2019 14:05:57 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gmkK1-00009n-MU for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2019 14:05:54 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:59878) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gmkK1-00009I-CY for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2019 14:05:53 -0500 Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 14:05:45 -0500 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20190124140522-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <78014185dc40dea43750eaa50ae093806e3dab66.1548136274.git.yi.z.zhang@linux.intel.com> <20190123145050.GU4136@habkost.net> <20190124112102.GA9821@tiger-server> <20190124165926.GY4136@habkost.net> <20190124123824-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20190124182839.GZ4136@habkost.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190124182839.GZ4136@habkost.net> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH V10 4/4] docs: Added MAP_SYNC documentation List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eduardo Habkost Cc: xiaoguangrong.eric@gmail.com, stefanha@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, pagupta@redhat.com, yu.c.zhang@linux.intel.com, richardw.yang@linux.intel.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, imammedo@redhat.com, dan.j.williams@intel.com On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 04:28:39PM -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 12:45:54PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 02:59:26PM -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 07:21:03PM +0800, Yi Zhang wrote: > > > > On 2019-01-23 at 12:50:50 -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 11:00:02AM +0800, Zhang, Yi wrote: > > > > > > From: Zhang Yi > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Zhang Yi > [...] > > > > > > + - 'pmem' option of memory-backend-file is 'on': > > > > > > + The backend is a file supporting DAX, e.g., a file on an ext4 or > > > > > > + xfs file system mounted with '-o dax'. if your pmem=on ,but the backend is > > > > > > + not a file supporting DAX, mapping with this flag results in an EOPNOTSUPP > > > > > > + error. > > > > > > > > > > Won't this break existing configurations that work today on QEMU > > > > > 3.1.0? Why exactly it is OK to break compatibility here? > > > > won't, pmem option default is off, if people who start VM don't know what > > > > backend file is, it is suggested and *default to set pmem=off, > > > > if people well know the backend file have dax capbility. it is suggest > > > > to set pmem=on. > > > > > > > > For a special case that we use /dev/dax as backend, we already have a > > > > patch to add MAP_SYNC falg mapiing from device dax mode. > > > > see https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/4/22/524 > > > > > > > > So, if people force set pmem=on, mapping a regular file, it will results > > > > in an EOPNOTSUPP error. > > > > > > This is where compatibility is being broken, isn't it? People > > > currently using pmem=on on a regular file will start getting > > > errors after a QEMU upgrade. Existing VMs with pmem=on may stop > > > booting. Maybe this is OK, but we need to be able to explain why > > > it is OK. > > > > I think it's OK since pmem explicitly means "persistent": > > > > The @option{pmem} option specifies whether the backing file specified > > by @option{mem-path} is in host persistent memory that can be accessed > > using the SNIA NVM programming model (e.g. Intel NVDIMM). > > If @option{pmem} is set to 'on', QEMU will take necessary operations to > > guarantee the persistence of its own writes to @option{mem-path} > > (e.g. in vNVDIMM label emulation and live migration). > > If it's OK, let's at least explicitly document that we are > breaking compatibility in those cases. > > > > > > > [...] > > I think generally MAP_SYNC is required. > > But for compatibility reasons we might need to support > > !MAP_SYNC on old kernels even though it's risky. > > What about making MAP_SYNC optional only on older machine-types? I don't think this makes sense. It's not a guest visible change, machine types are for that. > -- > Eduardo