Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 10/16] dimm: add busy slot check and slot auto-allocation

[Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>]

Il 24/07/2013 10:36, Igor Mammedov ha scritto:
> On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 19:09:26 +0200
> Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> Il 23/07/2013 18:23, Igor Mammedov ha scritto:
>>> - if slot property is not specified on -device/device_add command,
>>> treat default value as request for assigning DimmDevice to
>>> the first free slot.
>>
>> Even with "-m" instead of "-numa mem", I think this is problematic
>> because we still need to separate the host and guest parts of the DIMM
>> device.  "-numa mem" (or the QMP command that Wanlong added) will be
>> necessary to allocate memory on the host side before adding a DIMM.
> why not do host allocation part at the same time when DIMM is added, is
> there a real need to separate DIMM device?
> 
> I probably miss something but -numa mem option and co aside what problem
> couldn't be solved during DIMM device initialization and would require
> a split DIMM device?

Because otherwise, every option we add to "-numa mem" will have to be
added to "-device dimm".  For example,

   -device dimm,policy=interleave

makes no sense to me.

In fact, this is no different from having to do drive_add or netdev_add
before device_add.  First you tell QEMU about the host resources to use,
then you add the guest device and bind the device to those resources.

>> So slots will have three states: free (created with "-m"), allocated (a
>> free slot moves to this state with "-numa mem...,populated=no" when
>> migrating, or with the QMP command for regular hotplug), populated (an
>> allocated slot moves to this state with "-device dimm").
>>
>> You would be able to plug a DIMM only into an allocated slot, and the
>> size will be specified on the slot rather than the DIMM device.
> 'slot' property is there only for migration sake to provide stable
> numeric ID for QEMU<->ACPI BIOS interface. It's not used for any other
> purpose and wasn't intended for any other usage..

How would you otherwise refer to the memory you want to affect in a
set-mem-policy monitor command?

> on baremetal slot has noting to do with size of plugged in DIMM,

On baremetal slots also belong to a specific NUMA node, for what it's
worth.  There are going to be differences with baremetal no matter what.

> why we
> would model it other way if it only brings problems: like predefined size,

It doesn't have to be predefined.  In the previous discussions (and also
based on Vasilis and Hu Tao's implementations) I assumed predefined slot
sizes.  Now I understand the benefit of having a simpler command-line
with "-m", but then in return you need three slot states instead of just
unpopulated/populated.

So you'd just do

   set-mem-policy 0 size=2G      # free->allocated
   device_add dimm,slotid=0      # allocated->populated

to hotplug a 2G DIMM.  And you'll be able to pin it to host NUMA nodes,
and assign it to guest NUMA nodes, like this:

   set-mem-policy 0 size=2G,nodeid=1,policy=membind host-nodes=0-1
   device_add dimm,slotid=0

Again, this is the same as drive_add/device_add.

Paolo

> allocated, free etc. I think slot should be either free or busy.
> 
> 
>>
>> In general, I don't think free slots should be managed by the DimmBus,
>> and host vs. guest separation should be there even if we accept your
>> "-m" extension (doesn't look bad at all, I must say).
>>
>> Paolo
>