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 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 smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB8ACE77197 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2025 07:56:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tVnOU-0006gF-9z; Thu, 09 Jan 2025 02:55:54 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tVnOH-0006fF-2g for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 09 Jan 2025 02:55:46 -0500 Received: from mgamail.intel.com ([192.198.163.14]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tVnOD-0004gQ-Mv for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 09 Jan 2025 02:55:39 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1736409338; x=1767945338; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=pyZmZFyKDBHekyYEQGRVyICCu9kWdK7pV256wvcoNRI=; b=f4Mpp2XjNlDd9GcQgEAKN2laCYE99/7/WyDXsWncYJcDtjegYOgz3ls3 JrbXydJyoG+a4QGd43ILqnzlYlaXtdHyJ9xihTTCFhK9I7C3fRPptaMtH IqqBGpJI3P3sjL9whfrEW7iQGIY1gIy1ya0S3eppgb5Y/ifohCDKVMiVX txmJyrZIaf9Zx4Uf0v8WpFu+fBG+eV+uNF7YN31KpYCO91FlrbIgYWlGz Roopc1Tel6l1OgLa/qj77JB+AqcrgH6yAsFWYFUknHC1aLsPgpuo6wFDe IB9DUSWL7FknYmgCC3HxzpctIo8IJzli0zJUII/lNhu2lewlW/Zi4vC7a A==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: tgJCSFVaR9manGK2YRCAKA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: q9KA5WRyR3eUT0BC5yd+Ug== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11309"; a="36885075" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.12,300,1728975600"; d="scan'208";a="36885075" Received: from fmviesa009.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.149]) by fmvoesa108.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Jan 2025 23:55:31 -0800 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: In0HEq3YQQWKLhk9Q1wvMg== X-CSE-MsgGUID: WI+43nBfQFaAxKWBm/njXA== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.12,300,1728975600"; d="scan'208";a="103872722" Received: from liuzhao-optiplex-7080.sh.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.239.160.39]) by fmviesa009.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 08 Jan 2025 23:55:28 -0800 Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2025 16:14:17 +0800 From: Zhao Liu To: Chenyi Qiang Cc: David Hildenbrand , Paolo Bonzini , Peter Xu , Philippe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Mathieu-Daud=E9?= , Michael Roth , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Williams Dan J , Peng Chao P , Gao Chao , Xu Yilun Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] memory: Register the RamDiscardManager instance upon guest_memfd creation Message-ID: References: <20241213070852.106092-1-chenyi.qiang@intel.com> <20241213070852.106092-6-chenyi.qiang@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20241213070852.106092-6-chenyi.qiang@intel.com> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=192.198.163.14; envelope-from=zhao1.liu@intel.com; helo=mgamail.intel.com X-Spam_score_int: -47 X-Spam_score: -4.8 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.432, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=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: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org > #ifdef CONFIG_FALLOCATE_PUNCH_HOLE > @@ -1885,6 +1886,9 @@ static void ram_block_add(RAMBlock *new_block, Error **errp) > qemu_mutex_unlock_ramlist(); > goto out_free; > } > + > + GuestMemfdManager *gmm = GUEST_MEMFD_MANAGER(object_new(TYPE_GUEST_MEMFD_MANAGER)); > + guest_memfd_manager_realize(gmm, new_block->mr, new_block->mr->size); realize & unrealize are usually used for QDev. I think it's not good to use *realize and *unrealize here. Why about "guest_memfd_manager_attach_ram"? In addition, it seems the third parameter is unnecessary and we can access MemoryRegion.size directly in guest_memfd_manager_realize(). > } > > ram_size = (new_block->offset + new_block->max_length) >> TARGET_PAGE_BITS; > @@ -2139,6 +2143,9 @@ static void reclaim_ramblock(RAMBlock *block) > > if (block->guest_memfd >= 0) { > close(block->guest_memfd); > + GuestMemfdManager *gmm = GUEST_MEMFD_MANAGER(block->mr->rdm); > + guest_memfd_manager_unrealize(gmm); Similiarly, what about "guest_memfd_manager_unattach_ram"? > + object_unref(OBJECT(gmm)); > ram_block_discard_require(false); > } > Regards, Zhao