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=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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 06EA9C4167B for ; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 14:53:27 +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 9387D23118 for ; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 14:53:26 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 9387D23118 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]:60688 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1knNJt-0003vt-JI for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 09:53:25 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:41936) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1knNGr-00023n-FY for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 09:50:17 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([216.205.24.124]:46871) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1knNGo-0006lC-3R for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 09:50:16 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1607611811; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=p6ZLlBz5Y6AkBvx4isJCMiyeQmxt0MW+uZahiLuJP9A=; b=B6mw+T8+poQOxACmSGb4DaUfV7ZIOqDLYG/3dJdHlG2ONF6hkr/dbwm+qBjmtPkT56vQZ/ CU10Bl/fTltNghepRLIvnkEOSTdG63aLORq8PF5R69XD5/+z3UMru3AiLsCIEXyaA2Cdb/ qvKL2+R+kjk5BCm77W+6R6Xx0sTosHs= Received: from mail-qt1-f198.google.com (mail-qt1-f198.google.com [209.85.160.198]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-591-uvMultnXNYiyIfjcHH8QiA-1; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 09:50:10 -0500 X-MC-Unique: uvMultnXNYiyIfjcHH8QiA-1 Received: by mail-qt1-f198.google.com with SMTP id o12so4091701qtw.14 for ; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 06:50:09 -0800 (PST) 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; bh=p6ZLlBz5Y6AkBvx4isJCMiyeQmxt0MW+uZahiLuJP9A=; b=JxN5c/7bMpGPJH2Bpp6TZEpdYEZhpVaKDfR1GSbiIh1IAKZxLrbmZ5FvpHA5PX7Sb3 gZuL8yOs0LeQWy168+8NImGrJrIRE7R1isr0AmxTWhb9mIA8CxGT9WcaT6ILCCuG2dSE FaCPb//3BRYuDzzhZcONpGPtLxgsaWmt6SuH1IbmulrnOBmuJEA6JOr2t9/ab696OFTE 5qmA4oP3CVfM4b1AGfceG3NeQLNzs6C4MDXx77TtPpxa1WPezyLrrb6F1Ahi6DJhDf7w k19vCupCvL8G5AGijo2/f+Y0GnTJxDscBTYzXPtgDYHyDbM0dOrIaYfLK97j0r6EzVse rIww== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532TOZE2RoTNSnAnKoodUzoZqnWxee11dBPgzRrDMRpnD5JxyuZc Ee2oSuUykj7ZoALTh/3S+4RPLk5MyZBXWFU90g8dZC3OgVB8h0KoEn1V30dYeU9krgJ2x/IGjj3 8VpGlInpzzmFgtPU= X-Received: by 2002:ac8:4b50:: with SMTP id e16mr9727947qts.205.1607611808666; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 06:50:08 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwjJ6WswwqGFvyiv9ip5WIAUM0JCIUYY8mmXDfsQtdy0IJ+fsvY10//4cIOe8MqDtXBsvPBog== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:4b50:: with SMTP id e16mr9727933qts.205.1607611808464; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 06:50:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from xz-x1 ([142.126.83.202]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v128sm3583774qkc.126.2020.12.10.06.50.07 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 10 Dec 2020 06:50:07 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 09:50:06 -0500 From: Peter Xu To: zhukeqian Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvm: Take into account the unaligned section size when preparing bitmap Message-ID: <20201210145006.GD3211@xz-x1> References: <20201208114013.875-1-yuzenghui@huawei.com> <20201208151654.GA6432@xz-x1> <6dc82702-9246-4684-4f28-e104abc0c11d@huawei.com> <20201210020843.GB3211@xz-x1> <7d46e5ca-24ab-7c44-201c-77e8fc6a2ace@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <7d46e5ca-24ab-7c44-201c-77e8fc6a2ace@huawei.com> Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=peterx@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.205.24.124; envelope-from=peterx@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action 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: Zenghui Yu , pbonzini@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, wanghaibin.wang@huawei.com Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 10:53:23AM +0800, zhukeqian wrote: > > > On 2020/12/10 10:08, Peter Xu wrote: > > Keqian, > > > > On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 09:46:06AM +0800, zhukeqian wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> I see that if start or size is not PAGE aligned, it also clears areas > >> which beyond caller's expectation, so do we also need to consider this? > > > > Could you elaborate? > > > > If start_delta != 0, kvm_log_clear_one_slot() should already go the slow path. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Hi Peter, > > start_delta /= psize; > > If start is not PAGE aligned, then start_delta is not PAGE aligned. > so I think the above code will implicitly extend our start to be PAGE aligned. > > I suggest that we should shrink the start and (start + size) to be PAGE aligned > at beginning of this function. Callers should be with TARGET_PAGE_SIZE aligned on the size, so at least x86_64 should be pretty safe since host/guest page sizes match. Though indeed I must confess I don't know how it worked in general when host page size != target page size, at least for migration. For example, I believe kvm dirty logging is host page size based, though migration should be migrating pages in guest page size granule when it spots a dirty bit set. -- Peter Xu