From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49549) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f9AHx-0008Kj-Qq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 Apr 2018 10:11:58 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f9AHt-0001Ul-4b for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 Apr 2018 10:11:53 -0400 References: <20180419072123.682-1-david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> <20180419143318.4e24edaf@redhat.com> <20180419145840.324602ff.cohuck@redhat.com> <77d0717b-6eba-8b20-6691-c3085937604b@de.ibm.com> From: David Hildenbrand Message-ID: <065165b5-3ab4-ae1a-f72c-c04f911656c3@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 16:11:37 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <77d0717b-6eba-8b20-6691-c3085937604b@de.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [qemu-s390x] [PATCH for-2.13] Clear mem_path if we fall back to anonymous RAM allocation List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Christian Borntraeger , Cornelia Huck , Igor Mammedov Cc: David Gibson , ehabkost@redhat.com, groug@kaod.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-s390x@nongnu.org, qemu-ppc@nongnu.org, clg@kaod.org, pbonzini@redhat.com On 19.04.2018 15:34, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > > On 04/19/2018 02:58 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: >> On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 14:33:18 +0200 >> Igor Mammedov wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 17:21:23 +1000 >>> David Gibson wrote: >>> >>>> If the -mem-path option is set, we attempt to map the guest's RAM from a >>>> file in the given path; it's usually used to back guest RAM with hugepages. >>>> If we're unable to (e.g. not enough free hugepages) then we fall back to >>>> allocating normal anonymous pages. This behaviour can be surprising, but a >>>> comment in allocate_system_memory_nonnuma() suggests it's legacy behaviour >>>> we can't change. >>>> >>>> What really isn't ok, though, is that in this case we leave mem_path set. >>>> That means functions which attempt to determine the pagesize of main RAM >>>> can erroneously think it is hugepage based on the requested path, even >>>> though it's not. >>>> >>>> This is particular bad for the pseries machine type. KVM HV limitations >>>> mean the guest can't use pagesizes larger than the host page size used to >>>> back RAM. That means that such a fallback, rather than merely giving >>>> poorer performance that expected will cause the guest to freeze up early in >>>> boot as it attempts to use large page mappings that can't work. >>>> >>>> This patch addresses the problem by clearing the mem_path variable when we >>>> fall back to anonymous pages, meaning that subsequent attempts to >>>> determine the RAM page size will get an accurate result. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: David Gibson >>>> --- >>>> numa.c | 1 + >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >>>> >>>> Paolo et al, as with my earlier patches adding some extensions to the >>>> helpers for determining backing page sizes, if there are no objections >>>> can I get an ack to merge this via my ppc tree? >>>> >>>> diff --git a/numa.c b/numa.c >>>> index 1116c90af9..78a869e598 100644 >>>> --- a/numa.c >>>> +++ b/numa.c >>>> @@ -469,6 +469,7 @@ static void allocate_system_memory_nonnuma(MemoryRegion *mr, Object *owner, >>>> /* Legacy behavior: if allocation failed, fall back to >>>> * regular RAM allocation. >>>> */ >>>> + mem_path = NULL; >>>> memory_region_init_ram_nomigrate(mr, owner, name, ram_size, &error_fatal); >>>> } >>>> #else >>> >>> mem_path is also used by kvm_s390_apply_cpu_model(), >>> and in ccw_init() memory is initialized before CPUs are >>> so if QEM was started with -mem-path, then before patch >>> created CPU won't have CMM enabled and print warning: >>> >>> "CMM will not be enabled because it is not compatible with hugetlbfs." >>> >>> and after patch it might enable CMM if we clear mem_path. >>> So question is do we care about this? >> >> I don't quite remember the cmm semantics here -- Christian? > > The CMMA interface does not work on large pages. I think the kernel will react > with EFAULT in some cases (cmma migration and others) so qemu will probably fail > unexpectedly. > > But this patch seems to only clear mem-path if we do not allocate at all from > hugetlbfs. So things should be ok, no? > > This even looks like the right thing to me, as hugetlbfs was never supported. -- Thanks, David / dhildenb