All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
To: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, pasic@linux.ibm.com,
	borntraeger@de.ibm.com, rth@twiddle.net, david@redhat.com,
	qemu-s390x@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] s390x: remove direct reference to mem_path global form s90x code
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 10:23:05 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190125102305.76f1bc71.cohuck@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1548349076-350255-1-git-send-email-imammedo@redhat.com>

On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 17:57:56 +0100
Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com> wrote:

> I plan to deprecate -mem-path option and replace it with memory-backend,
> for that it's necessary to get rid of mem_path global variable.
> Do it for s390x case, replacing it with alternative way to enable
> 1Mb hugepages capability.

Getting rid of accessing mem_path directly sounds good.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
> ---
> PS:
> Original code nor the new one probably is not entirely correct when
> huge pages are enabled in case where mixed initial RAM and memory
> backends are used, backend's page size might not match initial RAM's
> so I'm not sure if enabling 1MB cap is correct in this case on s390
> (should it be the same for all RAM???).
> With new approach 1Mb cap is not enabled if the smallest page size
> is not 1Mb.
> ---
>  target/s390x/kvm.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++---------------------
>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/target/s390x/kvm.c b/target/s390x/kvm.c
> index 2ebf26a..22e868a 100644
> --- a/target/s390x/kvm.c
> +++ b/target/s390x/kvm.c
> @@ -285,33 +285,28 @@ void kvm_s390_crypto_reset(void)
>      }
>  }
>  
> -static int kvm_s390_configure_mempath_backing(KVMState *s)
> +static int kvm_s390_configure_hugepage_backing(KVMState *s)
>  {
> -    size_t path_psize = qemu_mempath_getpagesize(mem_path);
> +    size_t psize = qemu_getrampagesize();
>  
> -    if (path_psize == 4 * KiB) {
> -        return 0;
> -    }
> -
> -    if (!hpage_1m_allowed()) {
> -        error_report("This QEMU machine does not support huge page "
> -                     "mappings");
> -        return -EINVAL;
> -    }
> +    if (psize == 1 * MiB) {
> +        if (!hpage_1m_allowed()) {
> +            error_report("This QEMU machine does not support huge page "
> +                         "mappings");
> +            return -EINVAL;
> +        }
>  
> -    if (path_psize != 1 * MiB) {
> +        if (kvm_vm_enable_cap(s, KVM_CAP_S390_HPAGE_1M, 0)) {
> +            error_report("Memory backing with 1M pages was specified, "
> +                         "but KVM does not support this memory backing");
> +            return -EINVAL;
> +        }
> +        cap_hpage_1m = 1;
> +    } else if (psize == 2 * GiB) {
>          error_report("Memory backing with 2G pages was specified, "
>                       "but KVM does not support this memory backing");
>          return -EINVAL;
>      }
> -
> -    if (kvm_vm_enable_cap(s, KVM_CAP_S390_HPAGE_1M, 0)) {
> -        error_report("Memory backing with 1M pages was specified, "
> -                     "but KVM does not support this memory backing");
> -        return -EINVAL;
> -    }
> -
> -    cap_hpage_1m = 1;
>      return 0;

Just to compare, the old code did:
- 4K pages -> all fine, do nothing
- 1MB pages not allowed -> get out, regardless of the actual huge page
  size
- 1MB pages -> try to enable, if possible
- all other sizes -> moan about 2G pages and get out

And the new code does:
- 1M pages -> get out if 1MB not allowed, otherwise try to enable
- 2G pages -> moan about 2G pages and get out
- all other sizes -> all fine, do nothing

So, now the user will:
- get a different error if they try to run with a 2G backing but
  hpage_1m_allowed is off (which does not sound like a problem to me)
- get the all-clear if they specified a hypothetical different page
  size, while the code always complained about 2G pages before

Are there any chances at all that there may Yet Another Size? If not,
this looks fine.

>  }
>  
> @@ -319,7 +314,7 @@ int kvm_arch_init(MachineState *ms, KVMState *s)
>  {
>      MachineClass *mc = MACHINE_GET_CLASS(ms);
>  
> -    if (mem_path && kvm_s390_configure_mempath_backing(s)) {
> +    if (kvm_s390_configure_hugepage_backing(s)) {
>          return -EINVAL;
>      }
>  

  parent reply	other threads:[~2019-01-25  9:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-01-24 16:57 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] s390x: remove direct reference to mem_path global form s90x code Igor Mammedov
2019-01-25  8:03 ` David Hildenbrand
2019-01-25 10:40   ` Igor Mammedov
2019-01-25 11:41     ` Christian Borntraeger
2019-01-28 11:28     ` David Hildenbrand
2019-01-25  9:23 ` Cornelia Huck [this message]
2019-01-25  9:27   ` David Hildenbrand

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=20190125102305.76f1bc71.cohuck@redhat.com \
    --to=cohuck@redhat.com \
    --cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=david@redhat.com \
    --cc=imammedo@redhat.com \
    --cc=pasic@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
    --cc=qemu-s390x@nongnu.org \
    --cc=rth@twiddle.net \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.