Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] migration/postcopy: Handle RAMBlocks with a RamDiscardManager on the destination

[Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>]

On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 02:14:41PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 24.07.21 00:10, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 09:01:42PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > It can happen in corner cases and is valid: with the current virtio-mem
> > > spec, guests are allowed to read unplugged memory. This will, for example,
> > > happen on older Linux guests when reading /proc/kcore or (with even older
> > > guests) when dumping guest memory via kdump. These corner cases were the
> > > main reason why the spec allows for it -- until we have guests properly
> > > adjusted such that it won't happen even in corner cases.
> > > 
> > > A future feature bit will disallow it for the guest: required for supporting
> > > shmem/hugetlb cleanly. With that in place, I agree that we would want to
> > > warn in this case!
> > 
> > OK that makes sense; with the page_size change, feel free to add:
> 
> I just realized that relying on the page_size would be wrong.
> 
> We migrate TARGET_PAGE_SIZE chunks and the offset might not be page_size
> aligned. So if we were to replace TARGET_PAGE_SIZE by rb->page_size, we
> might accidentally cover a "too big" range.

I'm wondering whether we should make the offset page size aligned instead.  For
example, note that postcopy_place_page_zero() should only take page_size
aligned host addr or UFFDIO_COPY could fail (hugetlb doesn't support
UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE yet).

Btw, does virtio-mem supports hugetlbfs now?  When with it, the smallest unit
to plug/unplug would the huge page size (e.g., for 1g huge page, sounds not
helpful to unplug 2M memory), am I right?

-- 
Peter Xu