From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To: Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
"Michael S . Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>,
qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
qemu-s390x@nongnu.org, Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>,
Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/5] s390x: implement diag260
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 13:21:06 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3c163740-6299-a3dd-8b4d-58a5be123b0e@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200715104348.GB6927@osiris>
On 15.07.20 12:43, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 11:42:37AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> So, in summary, we want to indicate to the guest a memory region that
>> will be used to place memory devices ("device memory region"). The
>> region might have holes and the memory within this region might have
>> different semantics than ordinary system memory. Memory that belongs to
>> memory devices should only be detected+used if the guest OS has support
>> for them (e.g., virtio-mem, virtio-pmem, ...). An unmodified guest
>> (e.g., no virtio-mem driver) should not accidentally make use of such
>> memory.
>>
>> We need a way to
>> a) Tell the guest about boot memory (currently ram_size)
>> b) Tell the guest about the maximum possible ram address, including
>> device memory. (We could also indicate the special "device memory
>> region" explicitly)
>>
>> AFAIK, we have three options:
>>
>> 1. Indicate maxram_size via SCLP, indicate ram_size via diag260(0x10)
>>
>> This is what this series (RFCv1 does).
>>
>> Advantages:
>> - No need for a new diag. No need for memory sensing kernel changes.
>> Disadvantages
>> - Older guests without support for diag260 (<v4.2, kvm-unit-tests) will
>> assume all memory is accessible. Bad.
>
> Why would old guests assume that?
>
> At least in v4.1 the kernel will calculate the max address by using
> increment size * increment number and then test if *each* increment is
> available with tprot.
Yes, we do the same in kvm-unit-tests. But it's not sufficient for
memory devices.
Just because a tprot succeed (for memory belonging to a memory device)
does not mean the kernel should silently start to use that memory.
Note: memory devices are not just DIMMs that can be mapped to storage
increments. The memory might have completely different semantics, that's
why they are glued to a managing virtio device.
For example: a tprot might succeed on a memory region provided by
virtio-mem, this does, however, not mean that the memory can (and
should) be used by the guest.
>
>> - The semantics of the value returned in ry via diag260(0xc) is somewhat
>> unclear. Should we return the end address of the highest memory
>> device? OTOH, an unmodified guest OS (without support for memory
>> devices) should not have to care at all about any such memory.
>
> I'm confused. The kernel currently only uses diag260(0x10). How is
> diag260(0xc) relevant here?
We have to implement diag260(0x10) if we implement diag260(0xc), no? Or
can we simply throw a specification exception?
>
>> 3. Indicate maxram_size and ram_size via SCLP (using the SCLP standby
>> memory)
>>
>> I did not look into the details, because -ENODOCUMENTATION. At least we
>> would run into some alignment issues (again, having to align
>> ram_size/maxram_size to storage increments - which would no longer be
>> 1MB). We would run into issues later, trying to also support standby memory.
>
> That doesn't make sense to me: either support memory hotplug via
> sclp/standby memory, or with your new method. But trying to support
> both.. what's the use case?
Not sure if there is any, it just feels cleaner to me to separate the
architectured (sclp memory/reserved/standby) bits that specify a
semantic when used via rnmax+tprot from QEMU specific memory ranges that
have special semantics.
virtio-mem is only one type of a virtio-based memory device. In the
future we might want to have virtio-pmem, but there might be more ...
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-15 11:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-07-08 18:51 [PATCH RFC 0/5] s390x: initial support for virtio-mem David Hildenbrand
2020-07-08 18:51 ` [PATCH RFC 1/5] s390x: move setting of maximum ram size to machine init David Hildenbrand
2020-07-08 18:51 ` [PATCH RFC 2/5] s390x: implement diag260 David Hildenbrand
2020-07-09 10:37 ` Cornelia Huck
2020-07-09 17:54 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-10 8:32 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-10 8:41 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-10 9:19 ` Cornelia Huck
2020-07-13 11:54 ` Christian Borntraeger
2020-07-13 12:11 ` Cornelia Huck
2020-07-13 12:13 ` Christian Borntraeger
2020-07-09 10:52 ` Christian Borntraeger
2020-07-09 18:15 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-10 9:17 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-10 12:12 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-10 15:18 ` Heiko Carstens
2020-07-10 15:24 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-10 15:43 ` Heiko Carstens
2020-07-10 15:45 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-13 9:12 ` Heiko Carstens
2020-07-13 10:27 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-13 11:08 ` Christian Borntraeger
2020-07-15 9:42 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-15 10:43 ` Heiko Carstens
2020-07-15 11:21 ` David Hildenbrand [this message]
2020-07-15 11:34 ` Heiko Carstens
2020-07-15 11:42 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-15 16:14 ` Heiko Carstens
2020-07-15 17:38 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-15 17:51 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-20 14:43 ` Heiko Carstens
2020-07-20 15:43 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-08 18:51 ` [PATCH RFC 3/5] s390x: prepare device memory address space David Hildenbrand
2020-07-09 10:59 ` Cornelia Huck
2020-07-10 7:46 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-08 18:51 ` [PATCH RFC 4/5] s390x: implement virtio-mem-ccw David Hildenbrand
2020-07-09 9:24 ` Cornelia Huck
2020-07-09 9:26 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-08 18:51 ` [PATCH RFC 5/5] s390x: initial support for virtio-mem 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=3c163740-6299-a3dd-8b4d-58a5be123b0e@redhat.com \
--to=david@redhat.com \
--cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=cohuck@redhat.com \
--cc=frankja@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=imbrenda@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=pasic@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=qemu-s390x@nongnu.org \
--cc=rth@twiddle.net \
--cc=thuth@redhat.com \
/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).