qemu-devel.nongnu.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
To: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
Cc: aarcange@redhat.com, Marcel Apfelbaum <marcel@redhat.com>,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
	"Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>,
	qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Default for phys-addr-bits? (was Re: [PATCH 4/5] x86: Allow physical address bits to be set)
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 14:41:22 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <9b76415a-23e6-3ded-4dbc-42838cc164b0@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160621194440.GN17952@thinpad.lan.raisama.net>



On 21/06/2016 21:44, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> The consequences of migrating (or having migration blocked) to a
> host with smaller phys-addr-bits sound worse to me than the
> consequences of just having guest's phys-addr-bits smaller than
> the host's.

There is no correct answer.  We've been using host phys-addr-bits in
RHEL for 6 years and no one has ever reported a bug.

Most data centers (the ones that actually use migration) will all have
Xeon E5s and above, and pretty much all of them have 46-bits physical
address bits since at least Sandy Bridge.  That probably helps.
Save/restore is usually done on the same machine, which also helps
because host phys-addr-bits doesn't change.

>From a semantics point of view, using a smaller phys-addr-bits than the
host is the worst, because you tell the guest that some bits are
must-be-zero, when they're not.  Using a larger phys-addr-bits cannot
cause malfunctioning, only crashes (and as Gerd said, if you cross your
fingers and hope the guest doesn't put anything so high in memory,
chances are you'll succeed), and this makes it "safer".  I'm not sure
which one is more likely to happen.

So there's no correct answer, and that's why I think the lesser evil is
to go with the time-tested alternative and use host phys-addr-bits as
the default, even if it causes weird behavior on migration.  If a fixed
phys-addr-bits is specified on the destination, it should match the
value that was used on the source though.

Paolo

  reply	other threads:[~2016-06-22 12:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 73+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-06-16 17:12 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/5] x86: Physical address limit patches Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git)
2016-06-16 17:12 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/5] BIT_RANGE convenience macro Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git)
2016-06-16 17:23   ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-06-16 17:24     ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2016-06-16 18:01   ` Peter Maydell
2016-06-16 18:05     ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-06-20 14:11     ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2016-06-20 14:17       ` Peter Maydell
2016-06-16 17:12 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/5] x86: Mask mtrr mask based on CPU physical address limits Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git)
2016-06-16 19:59   ` Eduardo Habkost
2016-06-17  8:23     ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2016-06-17 12:13     ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-06-16 17:12 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/5] x86: fill high bits of mtrr mask Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git)
2016-06-16 20:14   ` Eduardo Habkost
2016-06-17  7:47     ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-06-17 12:46       ` Eduardo Habkost
2016-06-17 13:01         ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-06-17 13:41           ` Eduardo Habkost
2016-06-17 14:25             ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-06-17 15:27               ` Eduardo Habkost
2016-06-17 15:29                 ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-06-17 15:35                   ` Eduardo Habkost
2016-06-17 13:51           ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2016-06-17 14:19             ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-06-17  8:53     ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2016-06-16 17:12 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 4/5] x86: Allow physical address bits to be set Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git)
2016-06-16 17:26   ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-06-16 18:09     ` Eduardo Habkost
2016-06-16 20:24   ` Eduardo Habkost
2016-06-17  8:15     ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2016-06-17  8:43       ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-06-17  9:17         ` Gerd Hoffmann
2016-06-17  9:52           ` Igor Mammedov
2016-06-17 11:20             ` Gerd Hoffmann
2016-06-17 16:20               ` Laszlo Ersek
2016-06-17 16:07             ` Laszlo Ersek
2016-06-19 16:13               ` Marcel Apfelbaum
2016-06-20 10:42                 ` Igor Mammedov
2016-06-20 11:13                   ` Marcel Apfelbaum
2016-06-17  9:37       ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2016-06-17  9:54         ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-06-17 13:18       ` Eduardo Habkost
2016-06-17 13:38         ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-06-17 15:19           ` Eduardo Habkost
2016-06-17 15:28             ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-06-17 15:49               ` Eduardo Habkost
2016-06-21 19:44                 ` [Qemu-devel] Default for phys-addr-bits? (was Re: [PATCH 4/5] x86: Allow physical address bits to be set) Eduardo Habkost
2016-06-22 12:41                   ` Paolo Bonzini [this message]
2016-06-22 14:24                     ` Andrea Arcangeli
2016-06-22 14:33                       ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-06-22 14:44                         ` Andrea Arcangeli
2016-06-22 14:48                           ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-06-22 15:02                             ` Andrea Arcangeli
2016-06-22 22:44                       ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2016-06-22 23:23                         ` Andrea Arcangeli
2016-06-22 23:45                           ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2016-06-23  8:40                             ` Gerd Hoffmann
2016-06-23 16:38                               ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2016-06-24  5:55                                 ` Gerd Hoffmann
2016-06-24 23:12                                   ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2016-06-29 16:42                               ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2016-06-30  6:10                                 ` Gerd Hoffmann
2016-06-30 10:59                                   ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2016-06-30 16:14                                     ` Gerd Hoffmann
2016-06-30 17:12                                       ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2016-07-01 19:03                                       ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2016-06-22 22:40                     ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2016-06-22 23:15                       ` Andrea Arcangeli
2016-06-19  3:36           ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 4/5] x86: Allow physical address bits to be set Michael S. Tsirkin
2016-06-20  7:04             ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-06-17 14:24         ` Marcel Apfelbaum
2016-06-16 17:12 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 5/5] x86: Set physical address bits based on host Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git)
2016-06-17  7:25   ` Igor Mammedov

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=9b76415a-23e6-3ded-4dbc-42838cc164b0@redhat.com \
    --to=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
    --cc=dgilbert@redhat.com \
    --cc=ehabkost@redhat.com \
    --cc=marcel@redhat.com \
    --cc=mst@redhat.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).