From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA0C6C432C1 for ; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 03:28:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EAB32064A for ; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 03:28:00 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 8EAB32064A Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:45068 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iCxyB-0001sq-IF for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 23:27:59 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:45301) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iCxxU-0001T1-7L for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 23:27:17 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iCxxS-00014o-JH for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 23:27:15 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:11021) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iCxxS-00014Q-Ax for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 23:27:14 -0400 Received: from mail-pl1-f197.google.com (mail-pl1-f197.google.com [209.85.214.197]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A4E77FDCC for ; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 03:27:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pl1-f197.google.com with SMTP id p15so2490289plq.4 for ; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 20:27:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=zWpJ9kPj8TgfaMZLT9oNpV8QAnwBGi4IfaApWvqShoQ=; b=pwYXCRave/L4upwvY58M52a4/2R+8hzO+BhGfakNhbnduJryrRs6VwoSjXeHwJoKUV boNI22Zxv0Zp4PutLa8WKLFlD42QXq4sxhhlfTI9+JXTdDMINwdEIbjCxjjgR0c4pjlL k8d2xO5w25PkzYNGolQ45QdxzI6FfpSVu4vBhiMoCAg2IXxnqHQ+Z/RHM7vMtGjBLeAR rx771gJbH5iFla3IPDvGxOy3lyaqtn16m5oX9uRQvbwbnOHOY9fu4NwI9w6BVU92PWYg uERhUhXHZjLuoee3WxhiSDDlD+LsrYwfc4q3kE+15ydPjmPb9Q16S7MnQkPnzM7CG86e YPaw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXDXzEcibSm6dY2IAQM1ob24LGtA5eWNPaDX5cMQOuZZf6Hjran WiXmJIw8NS9814n/YtHtJUmRamecBPrfNRJhUH5zmedEwLNalcFbgUWvpPRazt+Px5kkcceQQ1V +gE3WGnR+CmGx2po= X-Received: by 2002:a62:1d82:: with SMTP id d124mr7255019pfd.135.1569382032784; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 20:27:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx6Y8Y9mSAcck49VLIPBcIlxLFdz9NqNqtpxrzAeWFlV1KAUajsIu+lQLGMmbOdItUjcHmzdw== X-Received: by 2002:a62:1d82:: with SMTP id d124mr7254993pfd.135.1569382032353; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 20:27:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xz-x1 ([209.132.188.80]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id cx22sm1178522pjb.19.2019.09.24.20.27.07 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 24 Sep 2019 20:27:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 11:27:00 +0800 From: Peter Xu To: Igor Mammedov Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 4/4] s390: do not call memory_region_allocate_system_memory() multiple times Message-ID: <20190925032700.GI28074@xz-x1> References: <20190924144751.24149-1-imammedo@redhat.com> <20190924144751.24149-5-imammedo@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190924144751.24149-5-imammedo@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.4 (2019-03-13) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 209.132.183.28 X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: thuth@redhat.com, david@redhat.com, cohuck@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, qemu-s390x@nongnu.org, pbonzini@redhat.com Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 10:47:51AM -0400, Igor Mammedov wrote: > s390 was trying to solve limited KVM memslot size issue by abusing > memory_region_allocate_system_memory(), which breaks API contract > where the function might be called only once. > > Beside an invalid use of API, the approach also introduced migration > issue, since RAM chunks for each KVM_SLOT_MAX_BYTES are transferred in > migration stream as separate RAMBlocks. > > After discussion [1], it was agreed to break migration from older > QEMU for guest with RAM >8Tb (as it was relatively new (since 2.12) > and considered to be not actually used downstream). > Migration should keep working for guests with less than 8TB and for > more than 8TB with QEMU 4.2 and newer binary. > In case user tries to migrate more than 8TB guest, between incompatible > QEMU versions, migration should fail gracefully due to non-exiting > RAMBlock ID or RAMBlock size mismatch. > > Taking in account above and that now KVM code is able to split too > big MemorySection into several memslots, partially revert commit > (bb223055b s390-ccw-virtio: allow for systems larger that 7.999TB) > and use kvm_set_max_memslot_size() to set KVMSlot size to > KVM_SLOT_MAX_BYTES. > > 1) [PATCH RFC v2 4/4] s390: do not call memory_region_allocate_system_memory() multiple times > > Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov Acked-by: Peter Xu IMHO it would be good to at least mention bb223055b9 in the commit message even if not with a "Fixed:" tag. May be amended during commit if anyone prefers. Also, this only applies the split limitation to s390. Would that be a good thing to some other archs as well? Thanks, -- Peter Xu