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=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no 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 11370C432C2 for ; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 12:11:04 +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 D1B5C217F4 for ; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 12:11:03 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org D1B5C217F4 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]:49172 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iD68M-00078p-VH for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 08:11:02 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:52761) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iD66n-0005rO-CU for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 08:09:26 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iD66m-0006FA-CH for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 08:09:25 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:60676) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iD66m-0006Ew-5o; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 08:09:24 -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 4E5918A1C95; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 12:09:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (unknown [10.43.2.182]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C5A2600C8; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 12:09:17 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 14:09:15 +0200 From: Igor Mammedov To: Peter Xu Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/4] kvm: split too big memory section on several memslots Message-ID: <20190925140915.3d43c8ab@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20190925031211.GH28074@xz-x1> References: <20190924144751.24149-1-imammedo@redhat.com> <20190924144751.24149-4-imammedo@redhat.com> <20190925031211.GH28074@xz-x1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.11 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.2 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.69]); Wed, 25 Sep 2019 12:09:23 +0000 (UTC) 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 Wed, 25 Sep 2019 11:12:11 +0800 Peter Xu wrote: > On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 10:47:50AM -0400, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > [...] > > > @@ -2877,6 +2912,7 @@ static bool kvm_accel_has_memory(MachineState *ms, AddressSpace *as, > > > > for (i = 0; i < kvm->nr_as; ++i) { > > if (kvm->as[i].as == as && kvm->as[i].ml) { > > + size = MIN(kvm_max_slot_size, size); > > return NULL != kvm_lookup_matching_slot(kvm->as[i].ml, > > start_addr, size); > > } > > Ideally we could also check that the whole (start_addr, size) region > is covered by KVM memslots here, but with current code I can't think > of a case where the result doesn't match with only checking the 1st > memslot. So I assume it's fine. yep, it's micro-optimization that works on assumption that whole memory section always is covered by memslots and original semantics where working only for if start_addr/size where covering whole memory section. Sole user mtree_print_flatview() is not performance sensitive, so if you'd like I can post an additional patch that iterates over whole range. > Reviewed-by: Peter Xu >