From: Eduardo Felipe <edusaper@gmail.com>
To: qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] Fix regression introduced by 6398
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 22:54:43 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <83a4d4ca0902011354r6d9aea22m714ceb55095fd274@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <83a4d4ca0901301240s75bb2b7au77b60a4bdb136076@mail.gmail.com>
2009/1/30 Eduardo Felipe <edusaper@gmail.com>:
> Hi,
>
> After commit 6398 some of my guests started to SEGFAULT at boot time.
> Reverting these two lines fixes the problem for me:
>
> signed-off-by: Eduardo Felipe <edusaper@gmail.com>
>
> --- a/hw/ide.c Fri Jan 30 21:15:15 2009
> +++ b/hw/ide.c Fri Jan 30 21:13:49 2009
> @@ -1084,7 +1084,7 @@
> #ifdef DEBUG_AIO
> printf("aio_read: sector_num=%" PRId64 " n=%d\n", sector_num, n);
> #endif
> - bm->aiocb = bdrv_aio_readv(s->bs, sector_num, &s->iovec, n,
> + bm->aiocb = bdrv_aio_read(s->bs, sector_num, s->io_buffer, n,
> ide_read_dma_cb, bm);
> ide_dma_submit_check(s, ide_read_dma_cb, bm);
> }
> @@ -1212,7 +1212,7 @@
> #ifdef DEBUG_AIO
> printf("aio_write: sector_num=%" PRId64 " n=%d\n", sector_num, n);
> #endif
> - bm->aiocb = bdrv_aio_writev(s->bs, sector_num, &s->iovec, n,
> + bm->aiocb = bdrv_aio_write(s->bs, sector_num, s->io_buffer, n,
> ide_write_dma_cb, bm);
> ide_dma_submit_check(s, ide_write_dma_cb, bm);
> }
>
>
> Can anybody take a look at it?
>
> Thanks,
> Edu
>
Please, ignore my previous mail.
I traced the problem to the qemu_free call in bdrv_aio_rw_vector_cb.
It fails when s->bounce is exactly 65536 bytes long (128 sectors).
This change seems to do the trick:
--- a/block.c Sun Feb 01 22:25:18 2009
+++ b/block.c Sun Feb 01 22:24:00 2009
@@ -1286,7 +1286,7 @@
s->this_aiocb = aiocb;
s->iov = iov;
- s->bounce = qemu_memalign(512, nb_sectors * 512);
+ s->bounce = qemu_memalign(512, nb_sectors * 512 + 4);
s->is_write = is_write;
if (is_write) {
qemu_iovec_to_buffer(s->iov, s->bounce);
I've seen a similar hack in ide_init2 when calling qemu_memalign. Are
these four bytes used in any way or it's just a way to avoid
allocating exactly a 64k multiple buffer?
My host is Win32. Can anybody confirm if this happens in any other platform?
Regards,
Edu
prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-02-01 21:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-01-30 20:40 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Fix regression introduced by 6398 Eduardo Felipe
2009-02-01 21:54 ` Eduardo Felipe [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=83a4d4ca0902011354r6d9aea22m714ceb55095fd274@mail.gmail.com \
--to=edusaper@gmail.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).