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=-8.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 B45FBC433E0 for ; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 21:39:21 +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 DC50F64F8E for ; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 21:39:20 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org DC50F64F8E 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]:47236 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lKT1b-00046q-It for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 16:39:19 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:52550) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lKT0R-0003Oq-Qs for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 16:38:07 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]:52931) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lKT0O-0001mv-PP for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 16:38:06 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1615498683; 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=kZrF/yQsMXm77PiXx1P+0D1I3GZC7MxcJm8SALcL6AU=; b=f+pShEY6xQOugH5lxWbRl5TXf8Elf1HwkNDiz8swLVTEfSDIla196M5VupbFJQcpLs6kcs 62rTI+amq2qnUh/IATFRRNHR8HHE6crjKw0UANW98YjxxZXEcxnC6Ap6UUzQz52AV5Wd2I U3lPIMzFg9fkdBswEi77XVVpnaA4H68= 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-162-NiPskGXzOJagRrQ7KE9LRQ-1; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 16:37:59 -0500 X-MC-Unique: NiPskGXzOJagRrQ7KE9LRQ-1 Received: by mail-qt1-f198.google.com with SMTP id l13so5306442qtu.6 for ; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 13:37:59 -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=kZrF/yQsMXm77PiXx1P+0D1I3GZC7MxcJm8SALcL6AU=; b=ZS+mwxN0ug1w6HQ6/aKWwMFY+z3P74TgWEGatbQvzOYF1bZqyNni0pDTqE7pnf5qb2 ZRm4Gb7ijPRkRS5mq/QiAS439RcLhRZgT+CzLo4kzquXpE0Xevbdq2dvmrQYYz+ZQ52T ksFVmAWnwakHtvXWdoK6lloTHuBKTF+1PrG49DjU+3O4jHnfvBR/p+gE+8d64nM7yfYB Wec9r51sOcLQYZ7RLh6l5wKAB4gZqijLwpPb+3AaFDMV3DeuVzojJEb73CYJZui43/HH CdhLI2YeSY4zlOoZWBEidhImPDPg1Jny/zl890bIQ5JVbIblCIdalAmyEw0BfXx7kjI8 D6PQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532mNcnrOt0oPt1U976teUbed4dCA7ul4IchH4jVHWHV7QJDGFFv zVEYng49QqtCAtMP/VqKm/TTUL5kxX/9ALn8gaPxoWfmA5YQ7F+JcctP3Wtcih2mmE4lsYQByGs zmSUp0CjYLKM94PY= X-Received: by 2002:ae9:df46:: with SMTP id t67mr9712419qkf.269.1615498678929; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 13:37:58 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxzk8F5sAa0ODlfPqw065h+75qA59f5F93azcxZn+clFkMLmwBnLoqMnsG17TZH9oferSHAZw== X-Received: by 2002:ae9:df46:: with SMTP id t67mr9712396qkf.269.1615498678736; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 13:37:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from xz-x1 ([142.126.89.138]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l129sm2878892qkd.76.2021.03.11.13.37.57 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 11 Mar 2021 13:37:58 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 16:37:56 -0500 From: Peter Xu To: David Hildenbrand Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/12] softmmu/physmem: Fix ram_block_discard_range() to handle shared anonymous memory Message-ID: <20210311213756.GL194839@xz-x1> References: <20210308150600.14440-1-david@redhat.com> <20210308150600.14440-3-david@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210308150600.14440-3-david@redhat.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=170.10.133.124; envelope-from=peterx@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -29 X-Spam_score: -3.0 X-Spam_bar: --- X-Spam_report: (-3.0 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.25, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=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: Marcel Apfelbaum , Cornelia Huck , Eduardo Habkost , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Stefan Weil , Murilo Opsfelder Araujo , Richard Henderson , "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" , Juan Quintela , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Halil Pasic , Christian Borntraeger , Greg Kurz , Stefan Hajnoczi , Igor Mammedov , Thomas Huth , Paolo Bonzini , Philippe =?utf-8?Q?Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9?= , Igor Kotrasinski Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 04:05:50PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: > We can create shared anonymous memory via > "-object memory-backend-ram,share=on,..." > which is, for example, required by PVRDMA for mremap() to work. > > Shared anonymous memory is weird, though. Instead of MADV_DONTNEED, we > have to use MADV_REMOVE. MADV_DONTNEED fails silently and does nothing. > > Fixes: 06329ccecfa0 ("mem: add share parameter to memory-backend-ram") I'm thinking whether we should keep this fixes - it's valid, however it could unveil issues if those remapped ranges didn't get unmapped in time. After all "not releasing some memory existed" seems not a huge deal for stable. No strong opinion, just raise it up as a pure question. > Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand Reviewed-by: Peter Xu -- Peter Xu