pc-dimm: factor out MemoryDevice
v3 cover pc-dimm: factor out MemoryDevice
Right now we can only map PCDIMM/NVDIMM into guest address space. In the future, we might want to do the same for virtio devices - e.g. virtio-pmem or virtio-mem. Especially, they should be able to live side by side to each other.
E.g. the virto based memory devices regions will not be exposed via ACPI and friends. They will be detected just like other virtio devices and indicate the applicable memory region. This makes it possible to also use them on architectures without memory device detection support (e.g. s390x).
Let's factor out the memory device code into a MemoryDevice interface.
v2 -> v3:
- "pc-dimm: factor out MemoryDevice interface" --> Lookup both classes when comparing (David Gibson)
v1 -> v2:
- Fix compile issues on ppc (still untested )
David Hildenbrand (3):
pc-dimm: factor out MemoryDevice interface
machine: make MemoryHotplugState accessible via the machine
pc-dimm: factor out address space logic into MemoryDevice code
hw/i386/acpi-build.c | 3 +-
hw/i386/pc.c | 24 ++-
hw/mem/Makefile.objs | 1 +
hw/mem/memory-device.c | 282 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
hw/mem/pc-dimm.c | 304 +++++++--------------------
hw/ppc/spapr.c | 24 ++-
hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c | 1 +
include/hw/boards.h | 16 ++
include/hw/mem/memory-device.h | 48 +++++
include/hw/mem/pc-dimm.h | 26 +--
numa.c | 3 +-
qmp.c | 4 +-
stubs/Makefile.objs | 2 +-
stubs/{qmp_pc_dimm.c => qmp_memory_device.c} | 4 +-
14 files changed, 465 insertions(+), 277 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 hw/mem/memory-device.c
create mode 100644 include/hw/mem/memory-device.h
rename stubs/{qmp_pc_dimm.c => qmp_memory_device.c} (61%)Signature · 1 line
2.14.3
PATCH v3 1/3 pc-dimm: factor out MemoryDevice interface
On the qmp level, we already have the concept of memory devices:
"query-memory-devices"
Right now, we only support NVDIMM and PCDIMM.
We want to map other devices later into the address space of the guest. Such device could e.g. be virtio devices. These devices will have a guest memory range assigned but won't be exposed via e.g. ACPI. We want to make them look like memory device, but not glued to pc-dimm.
Especially, it will not always be possible to have TYPE_PC_DIMM as a parent class (e.g. virtio devices). Let's use an interface instead. As a first part, convert handling of
- qmp_pc_dimm_device_list
- get_plugged_memory_size
to our new model. plug/unplug stuff etc. will follow later.
A memory device will have to provide the following functions:
- get_addr(): Necessary, as the property "addr" can e.g. not be used for virtio devices (already defined).
- get_plugged_size(): The amount this device offers to the guest as of now.
- get_region_size(): Because this can later on be bigger than the plugged size.
- fill_device_info(): Fill MemoryDeviceInfo, e.g. for qmp.
---
hw/i386/acpi-build.c | 3 +-
hw/mem/Makefile.objs | 1 +
hw/mem/memory-device.c | 120 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
hw/mem/pc-dimm.c | 119 +++++++++++++-------------
hw/ppc/spapr.c | 3 +-
hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c | 1 +
include/hw/mem/memory-device.h | 44 ++++++++++
include/hw/mem/pc-dimm.h | 2 -
numa.c | 3 +-
qmp.c | 4 +-
stubs/Makefile.objs | 2 +-
stubs/{qmp_pc_dimm.c => qmp_memory_device.c} | 4 +-
12 files changed, 240 insertions(+), 66 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 hw/mem/memory-device.c
create mode 100644 include/hw/mem/memory-device.h
rename stubs/{qmp_pc_dimm.c => qmp_memory_device.c} (61%)hw/i386/acpi-build.c +2 -1
@@ -46,6 +46,7 @@#include "hw/acpi/vmgenid.h" #include "sysemu/tpm_backend.h" #include "hw/timer/mc146818rtc_regs.h" +#include "hw/mem/memory-device.h" #include "sysemu/numa.h" /* Supported chipsets: */
@@ -2253,7 +2254,7 @@ build_tpm2(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, GArray *tcpalog)static void build_srat_hotpluggable_memory (GArray *table_data,uint64_t base,uint64_t len,int default_node) { -MemoryDeviceInfoList *info_list =qmp_pc_dimm_device_list (); +MemoryDeviceInfoList *info_list =qmp_memory_device_list ();MemoryDeviceInfoList *info;MemoryDeviceInfo *mi;PCDIMMDeviceInfo *di;
hw/mem/Makefile.objs +1 -0
@@ -1,2 +1,3 @@ common-obj-$(CONFIG_MEM_HOTPLUG) += pc-dimm.o +common-obj-$(CONFIG_MEM_HOTPLUG) += memory-device.o common-obj-$(CONFIG_NVDIMM) += nvdimm.o
hw/mem/memory-device.c new file +120 -0
120 lines not on this page · raw message
hw/mem/pc-dimm.c +63 -56
159 lines not on this page · raw message
hw/ppc/spapr.c +2 -1
@@ -74,6 +74,7 @@#include "hw/compat.h" #include "qemu/cutils.h" #include "hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.h" +#include "hw/mem/memory-device.h" #include <libfdt.h>
@@ -722,7 +723,7 @@ static int spapr_populate_drconf_memory(sPAPRMachineState *spapr, void *fdt) }if (hotplug_lmb_start) { - dimms =qmp_pc_dimm_device_list (); + dimms =qmp_memory_device_list (); }/* ibm,dynamic-memory */
hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c +1 -0
@@ -14,6 +14,7 @@#include "kvm_ppc.h" #include "hw/ppc/spapr_ovec.h" #include "mmu-book3s-v3.h" +#include "hw/mem/memory-device.h" struct SPRSyncState {int spr;
include/hw/mem/memory-device.h new file +44 -0
44 lines not on this page · raw message
include/hw/mem/pc-dimm.h +0 -2
@@ -93,9 +93,7 @@ uint64_t pc_dimm_get_free_addr(uint64_t address_space_start,int pc_dimm_get_free_slot (const int *hint,int max_slots,Error **errp); -MemoryDeviceInfoList *qmp_pc_dimm_device_list (void );uint64_t pc_existing_dimms_capacity (Error **errp); -uint64_t get_plugged_memory_size (void );void pc_dimm_memory_plug (DeviceState *dev,MemoryHotplugState *hpms,MemoryRegion *mr,uint64_t align,Error **errp); void pc_dimm_memory_unplug(DeviceState *dev, MemoryHotplugState *hpms,
numa.c +2 -1
@@ -36,6 +36,7 @@#include "hw/boards.h" #include "sysemu/hostmem.h" #include "hw/mem/pc-dimm.h" +#include "hw/mem/memory-device.h" #include "qemu/option.h" #include "qemu/config-file.h" #include "qemu/cutils.h"
@@ -520,7 +521,7 @@ void memory_region_allocate_system_memory(MemoryRegion *mr, Object *owner,static void numa_stat_memory_devices (NumaNodeMem node_mem[]) { -MemoryDeviceInfoList *info_list =qmp_pc_dimm_device_list (); +MemoryDeviceInfoList *info_list =qmp_memory_device_list ();MemoryDeviceInfoList *info;PCDIMMDeviceInfo *pcdimm_info;
qmp.c +2 -2
@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@#include "qapi/qobject-input-visitor.h" #include "hw/boards.h" #include "qom/object_interfaces.h" -#include "hw/mem/pc-dimm.h" +#include "hw/mem/memory-device.h" #include "hw/acpi/acpi_dev_interface.h" NameInfo *qmp_query_name (Error **errp)
@@ -731,7 +731,7 @@ void qmp_object_del(const char *id, Error **errp)MemoryDeviceInfoList *qmp_query_memory_devices (Error **errp) { -return qmp_pc_dimm_device_list (); +return qmp_memory_device_list (); }ACPIOSTInfoList *qmp_query_acpi_ospm_status (Error **errp)
stubs/Makefile.objs +1 -1
@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ stub-obj-y += uuid.o stub-obj-y += vm-stop.o stub-obj-y += vmstate.o stub-obj-$(CONFIG_WIN32) += fd-register.o -stub-obj-y += qmp_pc_dimm.o +stub-obj-y += qmp_memory_device.o stub-obj-y += target-monitor-defs.o stub-obj-y += target-get-monitor-def.o stub-obj-y += pc_madt_cpu_entry.o
stubs/qmp_memory_device.c renamed from stubs/qmp_pc_dimm.c +2 -2
@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@#include "qemu/osdep.h" #include "qom/object.h" -#include "hw/mem/pc-dimm.h" +#include "hw/mem/memory-device.h" -MemoryDeviceInfoList *qmp_pc_dimm_device_list (void ) +MemoryDeviceInfoList *qmp_memory_device_list (void ) {return NULL ; }
Signature · 1 line
2.14.3
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 1/3] pc-dimm: factor out MemoryDevice interface
Quoted 25 lines · David Hildenbrand
On the qmp level, we already have the concept of memory devices:
"query-memory-devices"
Right now, we only support NVDIMM and PCDIMM.We want to map other devices later into the address space of the guest. Such device could e.g. be virtio devices. These devices will have a guest memory range assigned but won't be exposed via e.g. ACPI. We want to make them look like memory device, but not glued to pc-dimm.
Especially, it will not always be possible to have
TYPE_PC_DIMMas a parent class (e.g. virtio devices). Let's use an interface instead. As a first part, convert handling of
-qmp_pc_dimm_device_list
-get_plugged_memory_size
to our new model. plug/unplug stuff etc. will follow later.A memory device will have to provide the following functions:
-get_addr(): Necessary, as the property "addr" can e.g. not be used for virtio devices (already defined).
-get_plugged_size(): The amount this device offers to the guest as of now.
-get_region_size(): Because this can later on be bigger than the plugged size.
-fill_device_info(): Fill MemoryDeviceInfo, e.g. for qmp.
Quoted 1 line
Signed-off-by David Hildenbrand <[email protected]>
with the exception of some tiny nits..
[snip]
hw/mem/memory-device.c line 22
Quoted 4 lines
hw/mem/memory-device.c new file +4
-0+static gint memory_device_addr_sort (gconstpointer a,gconstpointer b) +{ +MemoryDeviceState *md_a =MEMORY_DEVICE (a); +MemoryDeviceState *md_b =MEMORY_DEVICE (b);
These probably should be const MemoryDeviceState *.
Quoted 4 lines
hw/mem/memory-device.c new file +4
-0+MemoryDeviceClass *mdc_a =MEMORY_DEVICE_GET_CLASS (a); +MemoryDeviceClass *mdc_b =MEMORY_DEVICE_GET_CLASS (b); +const uint64_t addr_a = mdc_a->get_addr (md_a); +const uint64_t addr_b = mdc_b->get_addr (md_b);
hw/mem/memory-device.c line 36
Quoted 10 lines
hw/mem/memory-device.c new file +10
-0+ +if (addr_a > addr_b) { +return 1 ; + }else if (addr_a < addr_b) { +return -1 ; + } +return 0 ; +} + +static int memory_device_built_list (Object *obj,void *opaque)
s/built/build/ will read a bit more clearly I think.
Signature · 4 lines
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 1/3] pc-dimm: factor out MemoryDevice interface
Quoted 32 lines · David Gibson
Quoted 25 lines · David Hildenbrand
On the qmp level, we already have the concept of memory devices:
"query-memory-devices"
Right now, we only support NVDIMM and PCDIMM.We want to map other devices later into the address space of the guest. Such device could e.g. be virtio devices. These devices will have a guest memory range assigned but won't be exposed via e.g. ACPI. We want to make them look like memory device, but not glued to pc-dimm.
Especially, it will not always be possible to have
TYPE_PC_DIMMas a parent class (e.g. virtio devices). Let's use an interface instead. As a first part, convert handling of
-qmp_pc_dimm_device_list
-get_plugged_memory_size
to our new model. plug/unplug stuff etc. will follow later.A memory device will have to provide the following functions:
-get_addr(): Necessary, as the property "addr" can e.g. not be used for virtio devices (already defined).
-get_plugged_size(): The amount this device offers to the guest as of now.
-get_region_size(): Because this can later on be bigger than the plugged size.
-fill_device_info(): Fill MemoryDeviceInfo, e.g. for qmp.Quoted 1 line
Signed-off-by David Hildenbrand <[email protected]>Reviewed-by David Gibson <[email protected]>with the exception of some tiny nits..
Quoted 7 lines
[snip]
hw/mem/memory-device.c line 22
Quoted 4 lines
hw/mem/memory-device.c new file +4
-0+static gint memory_device_addr_sort (gconstpointer a,gconstpointer b) +{ +MemoryDeviceState *md_a =MEMORY_DEVICE (a); +MemoryDeviceState *md_b =MEMORY_DEVICE (b);These probably should be const MemoryDeviceState *.
Yes, that could work (depends on what the functions getting called internally expect). Will look into it
Quoted 18 lines
Quoted 5 lines
hw/mem/memory-device.c new file +4
-0+MemoryDeviceClass *mdc_a =MEMORY_DEVICE_GET_CLASS (a); +MemoryDeviceClass *mdc_b =MEMORY_DEVICE_GET_CLASS (b); +const uint64_t addr_a = mdc_a->get_addr (md_a); +const uint64_t addr_b = mdc_b->get_addr (md_b);hw/mem/memory-device.c line 36
Quoted 10 lines
hw/mem/memory-device.c new file +10
-0+ +if (addr_a > addr_b) { +return 1 ; + }else if (addr_a < addr_b) { +return -1 ; + } +return 0 ; +} + +static int memory_device_built_list (Object *obj,void *opaque)s/built/build/ will read a bit more clearly I think.
Indeed, thanks!
Signature · 3 lines
Thanks, David / dhildenb
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 1/3] pc-dimm: factor out MemoryDevice interface
Quoted 41 lines · David Hildenbrand
Quoted 32 lines · David Gibson
Quoted 25 lines · David Hildenbrand
On the qmp level, we already have the concept of memory devices:
"query-memory-devices"
Right now, we only support NVDIMM and PCDIMM.We want to map other devices later into the address space of the guest. Such device could e.g. be virtio devices. These devices will have a guest memory range assigned but won't be exposed via e.g. ACPI. We want to make them look like memory device, but not glued to pc-dimm.
Especially, it will not always be possible to have
TYPE_PC_DIMMas a parent class (e.g. virtio devices). Let's use an interface instead. As a first part, convert handling of
-qmp_pc_dimm_device_list
-get_plugged_memory_size
to our new model. plug/unplug stuff etc. will follow later.A memory device will have to provide the following functions:
-get_addr(): Necessary, as the property "addr" can e.g. not be used for virtio devices (already defined).
-get_plugged_size(): The amount this device offers to the guest as of now.
-get_region_size(): Because this can later on be bigger than the plugged size.
-fill_device_info(): Fill MemoryDeviceInfo, e.g. for qmp.Quoted 1 line
Signed-off-by David Hildenbrand <[email protected]>Reviewed-by David Gibson <[email protected]>with the exception of some tiny nits..
Quoted 7 lines
[snip]
hw/mem/memory-device.c line 22
Quoted 4 lines
hw/mem/memory-device.c new file +4
-0+static gint memory_device_addr_sort (gconstpointer a,gconstpointer b) +{ +MemoryDeviceState *md_a =MEMORY_DEVICE (a); +MemoryDeviceState *md_b =MEMORY_DEVICE (b);These probably should be const MemoryDeviceState *.
Quoted 2 lines
Yes, that could work (depends on what the functions getting called internally expect). Will look into it
Well, the only thing being called here is the ->get_addr() hook, which you can redefine if necessary. Discarding the const in the passed in pointers seems like bad idea, even though it won't explicitly warn due to the existing MEMORY_DEVICE() cast.
Quoted 20 lines
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 8 lines
hw/mem/memory-device.c new file +8
-0+MemoryDeviceClass *mdc_a =MEMORY_DEVICE_GET_CLASS (a); +MemoryDeviceClass *mdc_b =MEMORY_DEVICE_GET_CLASS (b); +const uint64_t addr_a = mdc_a->get_addr (md_a); +const uint64_t addr_b = mdc_b->get_addr (md_b); + +if (addr_a > addr_b) { +return 1 ; + }else if (addr_a < addr_b) {Quoted 9 lines
hw/mem/memory-device.c line 36
Quoted 6 lines
hw/mem/memory-device.c new file +6
-0+return -1 ; + } +return 0 ; +} + +static int memory_device_built_list (Object *obj,void *opaque)s/built/build/ will read a bit more clearly I think.
Indeed, thanks!
Signature · 4 lines
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 1/3] pc-dimm: factor out MemoryDevice interface
Quoted 42 lines · David Gibson
Quoted 41 lines · David Hildenbrand
Quoted 39 lines · David Gibson
Quoted 25 lines · David Hildenbrand
On the qmp level, we already have the concept of memory devices:
"query-memory-devices"
Right now, we only support NVDIMM and PCDIMM.We want to map other devices later into the address space of the guest. Such device could e.g. be virtio devices. These devices will have a guest memory range assigned but won't be exposed via e.g. ACPI. We want to make them look like memory device, but not glued to pc-dimm.
Especially, it will not always be possible to have
TYPE_PC_DIMMas a parent class (e.g. virtio devices). Let's use an interface instead. As a first part, convert handling of
-qmp_pc_dimm_device_list
-get_plugged_memory_size
to our new model. plug/unplug stuff etc. will follow later.A memory device will have to provide the following functions:
-get_addr(): Necessary, as the property "addr" can e.g. not be used for virtio devices (already defined).
-get_plugged_size(): The amount this device offers to the guest as of now.
-get_region_size(): Because this can later on be bigger than the plugged size.
-fill_device_info(): Fill MemoryDeviceInfo, e.g. for qmp.Quoted 1 line
Signed-off-by David Hildenbrand <[email protected]>Reviewed-by David Gibson <[email protected]>with the exception of some tiny nits..
[snip]
hw/mem/memory-device.c line 22
Quoted 4 lines
hw/mem/memory-device.c new file +4
-0+static gint memory_device_addr_sort (gconstpointer a,gconstpointer b) +{ +MemoryDeviceState *md_a =MEMORY_DEVICE (a); +MemoryDeviceState *md_b =MEMORY_DEVICE (b);These probably should be const MemoryDeviceState *.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Yes, that could work (depends on what the functions getting called internally expect). Will look into it
Well, the only thing being called here is the ->get_addr() hook, which you can redefine if necessary. Discarding the const in the passed in pointers seems like bad idea, even though it won't explicitly warn due to the existing
MEMORY_DEVICE()cast.
I converted all MemoryDevice functions to eat "const MemoryDeviceState *md".
The only problematic part now is
static uint64_t pc_dimm_md_get_region_size(const MemoryDeviceState *md)
It calls "ddc->get_memory_region(dimm, &error_abort);", and it looks like we cannot convert this to eat a const DIMM pointer (as it has to return a !const pointer to the memory region).
So we will actually drop the const here - which is fine because we don't modify anything.
Quoted 22 lines
Quoted 21 lines
Quoted 18 lines
Quoted 5 lines
hw/mem/memory-device.c new file +4
-0+MemoryDeviceClass *mdc_a =MEMORY_DEVICE_GET_CLASS (a); +MemoryDeviceClass *mdc_b =MEMORY_DEVICE_GET_CLASS (b); +const uint64_t addr_a = mdc_a->get_addr (md_a); +const uint64_t addr_b = mdc_b->get_addr (md_b);hw/mem/memory-device.c line 36
Quoted 10 lines
hw/mem/memory-device.c new file +10
-0+ +if (addr_a > addr_b) { +return 1 ; + }else if (addr_a < addr_b) { +return -1 ; + } +return 0 ; +} + +static int memory_device_built_list (Object *obj,void *opaque)s/built/build/ will read a bit more clearly I think.
Indeed, thanks!
Signature · 3 lines
Thanks, David / dhildenb
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 1/3] pc-dimm: factor out MemoryDevice interface
In reply to David HildenbrandQuoted 446 lines
On the qmp level, we already have the concept of memory devices:
"query-memory-devices"
Right now, we only support NVDIMM and PCDIMM.We want to map other devices later into the address space of the guest. Such device could e.g. be virtio devices. These devices will have a guest memory range assigned but won't be exposed via e.g. ACPI. We want to make them look like memory device, but not glued to pc-dimm.
Especially, it will not always be possible to have
TYPE_PC_DIMMas a parent class (e.g. virtio devices). Let's use an interface instead. As a first part, convert handling of
-qmp_pc_dimm_device_list
-get_plugged_memory_size
to our new model. plug/unplug stuff etc. will follow later.A memory device will have to provide the following functions:
-get_addr(): Necessary, as the property "addr" can e.g. not be used for virtio devices (already defined).
-get_plugged_size(): The amount this device offers to the guest as of now.
-get_region_size(): Because this can later on be bigger than the plugged size.
-fill_device_info(): Fill MemoryDeviceInfo, e.g. for qmp.Signed-off-by David Hildenbrand <[email protected]>--- hw/i386/acpi-build.c | 3 +- hw/mem/Makefile.objs | 1 + hw/mem/memory-device.c | 120 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ hw/mem/pc-dimm.c | 119 +++++++++++++------------- hw/ppc/spapr.c | 3 +- hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c | 1 + include/hw/mem/memory-device.h | 44 ++++++++++ include/hw/mem/pc-dimm.h | 2 - numa.c | 3 +- qmp.c | 4 +- stubs/Makefile.objs | 2 +- stubs/{qmp_pc_dimm.c => qmp_memory_device.c} | 4 +- 12 files changed, 240 insertions(+), 66 deletions(-) create mode 100644 hw/mem/memory-device.c create mode 100644 include/hw/mem/memory-device.h rename stubs/{qmp_pc_dimm.c => qmp_memory_device.c} (61%)hw/i386/acpi-build.c +2
-1@@ -46,6 +46,7 @@#include "hw/acpi/vmgenid.h" #include "sysemu/tpm_backend.h" #include "hw/timer/mc146818rtc_regs.h" +#include "hw/mem/memory-device.h" #include "sysemu/numa.h" /* Supported chipsets: */ @@ -2253,7 +2254,7 @@ build_tpm2(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, GArray *tcpalog)static void build_srat_hotpluggable_memory (GArray *table_data,uint64_t base,uint64_t len,int default_node) { -MemoryDeviceInfoList *info_list =qmp_pc_dimm_device_list (); +MemoryDeviceInfoList *info_list =qmp_memory_device_list ();MemoryDeviceInfoList *info;MemoryDeviceInfo *mi; PCDIMMDeviceInfo *di;hw/mem/Makefile.objs +1
-0@@ -1,2 +1,3 @@ common-obj-$(CONFIG_MEM_HOTPLUG) += pc-dimm.o +common-obj-$(CONFIG_MEM_HOTPLUG) += memory-device.o common-obj-$(CONFIG_NVDIMM) += nvdimm.ohw/mem/memory-device.c new file +43
-0@@ -0,0 +1,120 @@ +/* +* Memory Device Interface +* +* Copyright ProfitBricks GmbH 2012 +* Copyright (C) 2014 Red Hat Inc +* Copyright (c) 2018 Red Hat Inc +* +* This work is licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL, version 2 or later. +* See the COPYING file in the top-level directory. +*/ + +#include "qemu/osdep.h" +#include "hw/mem/memory-device.h" +#include "hw/qdev.h" +#include "qapi/error.h" +#include "hw/boards.h" +#include "qemu/range.h" + +static gint memory_device_addr_sort (gconstpointer a,gconstpointer b) +{ +MemoryDeviceState *md_a =MEMORY_DEVICE (a); +MemoryDeviceState *md_b =MEMORY_DEVICE (b); +MemoryDeviceClass *mdc_a =MEMORY_DEVICE_GET_CLASS (a); +MemoryDeviceClass *mdc_b =MEMORY_DEVICE_GET_CLASS (b); +const uint64_t addr_a = mdc_a->get_addr (md_a); +const uint64_t addr_b = mdc_b->get_addr (md_b); + +if (addr_a > addr_b) { +return 1 ; + }else if (addr_a < addr_b) { +return -1 ; + } +return 0 ; +} + +static int memory_device_built_list (Object *obj,void *opaque) +{ +GSList **list = opaque; + +if (object_dynamic_cast (obj,TYPE_MEMORY_DEVICE )) { +DeviceState *dev =DEVICE (obj); +if (dev->realized) {/* only realized memory devices matter */ + *list = g_slist_insert_sorted(*list, dev,
memory_device_addr_sort);hw/mem/memory-device.c new file +77
-0+ } + } + +object_child_foreach (obj, memory_device_built_list, opaque); +return 0 ; +} + +MemoryDeviceInfoList *qmp_memory_device_list (void ) +{ +GSList *devices =NULL , *item; +MemoryDeviceInfoList *list =NULL , *prev =NULL ; + +object_child_foreach (qdev_get_machine (), memory_device_built_list, + &devices); + +for (item = devices; item; item =g_slist_next (item)) { +MemoryDeviceState *md =MEMORY_DEVICE (item->data); +MemoryDeviceClass *mdc =MEMORY_DEVICE_GET_CLASS (item->data); +MemoryDeviceInfoList *elem =g_new0 (MemoryDeviceInfoList,1 ); +MemoryDeviceInfo *info =g_new0 (MemoryDeviceInfo,1 ); + + mdc->fill_device_info (md, info); + + elem->value = info; + elem->next =NULL ; +if (prev) { + prev->next = elem; + }else { + list = elem; + } + prev = elem; + } + +g_slist_free (devices); + +return list; +} + +static int memory_device_plugged_size (Object *obj,void *opaque) +{ +uint64_t *size = opaque; + +if (object_dynamic_cast (obj,TYPE_MEMORY_DEVICE )) { +DeviceState *dev =DEVICE (obj); +MemoryDeviceState *md =MEMORY_DEVICE (obj); +MemoryDeviceClass *mdc =MEMORY_DEVICE_GET_CLASS (obj); + +if (dev->realized) { + *size += mdc->get_plugged_size (md, &error_abort); + } + } + +object_child_foreach (obj, memory_device_plugged_size, opaque); +return 0 ; +} + +uint64_t get_plugged_memory_size (void ) +{ +uint64_t size =0 ; + +memory_device_plugged_size (qdev_get_machine (), &size); + +return size; +} + +static const TypeInfo memory_device_info = { + .name =TYPE_MEMORY_DEVICE , + .parent =TYPE_INTERFACE , + .class_size =sizeof (MemoryDeviceClass), +}; + +static void memory_device_register_types (void ) +{ +type_register_static (&memory_device_info); +} + +type_init (memory_device_register_types)hw/mem/pc-dimm.c +1
-56@@ -21,6 +21,7 @@#include "qemu/osdep.h" #include "hw/mem/pc-dimm.h" #include "hw/mem/nvdimm.h" +#include "hw/mem/memory-device.h" #include "qapi/error.h" #include "qemu/config-file.h" #include "qapi/visitor.h" @@ -158,11 +159,6 @@ uint64_t pc_existing_dimms_capacity(Error **errp)return cap.size; } -uint64_t get_plugged_memory_size (void ) -{ -return pc_existing_dimms_capacity (&error_abort); -} -static int pc_dimm_slot2bitmap (Object *obj,void *opaque) {unsigned long *bitmap = opaque;@@ -238,57 +234,6 @@ static int pc_dimm_built_list(Object *obj, void *opaque)return 0 ; } -MemoryDeviceInfoList *qmp_pc_dimm_device_list (void ) -{ -GSList *dimms =NULL , *item; -MemoryDeviceInfoList *list =NULL , *prev =NULL ; - -object_child_foreach (qdev_get_machine (), pc_dimm_built_list, &dimms); - -for (item = dimms; item; item =g_slist_next (item)) { -PCDIMMDevice *dimm =PC_DIMM (item->data); -Object *obj =OBJECT (dimm); -MemoryDeviceInfoList *elem =g_new0 (MemoryDeviceInfoList,1 ); -MemoryDeviceInfo *info =g_new0 (MemoryDeviceInfo,1 ); -PCDIMMDeviceInfo *di =g_new0 (PCDIMMDeviceInfo,1 ); -bool is_nvdimm =object_dynamic_cast (obj,TYPE_NVDIMM ); -DeviceClass *dc =DEVICE_GET_CLASS (obj); -DeviceState *dev =DEVICE (obj); - -if (dev->id) { - di->has_id = true; - di->id =g_strdup (dev->id); - } - di->hotplugged = dev->hotplugged; - di->hotpluggable = dc->hotpluggable; - di->addr = dimm->addr; - di->slot = dimm->slot; - di->node = dimm->node; - di->size =object_property_get_uint (obj,PC_DIMM_SIZE_PROP ,NULL ); - di->memdev =object_get_canonical_path (OBJECT (dimm->hostmem)); - -if (!is_nvdimm) { - info->u.dimm.data = di; - info->type =MEMORY_DEVICE_INFO_KIND_DIMM ; - }else { - info->u.nvdimm.data = di; - info->type =MEMORY_DEVICE_INFO_KIND_NVDIMM ; - } - elem->value = info; - elem->next =NULL ; -if (prev) { - prev->next = elem; - }else { - list = elem; - } - prev = elem; - } - -g_slist_free (dimms); - -return list; -} -uint64_t pc_dimm_get_free_addr (uint64_t address_space_start,uint64_t address_space_size, uint64_t *hint, uint64_t align, uint64_tsize,
hw/mem/pc-dimm.c +52
-0@@ -445,10 +390,62 @@ static MemoryRegion *pc_dimm_get_vmstate_memory_region(PCDIMMDevice *dimm)return host_memory_backend_get_memory (dimm->hostmem, &error_abort); } +static uint64_t pc_dimm_md_get_addr (MemoryDeviceState *md) +{ +PCDIMMDevice *dimm =PC_DIMM (md); + +return dimm->addr; +} + +static uint64_t pc_dimm_md_get_region_size (MemoryDeviceState *md,Error **errp) +{ +PCDIMMDevice *dimm =PC_DIMM (md); +PCDIMMDeviceClass *ddc =PC_DIMM_GET_CLASS (md); +MemoryRegion *mr; + + mr = ddc->get_memory_region (dimm, errp); +if (!mr) { +return 0 ; + } + +return memory_region_size (mr); +} + +static void pc_dimm_md_fill_device_info (MemoryDeviceState *md, +MemoryDeviceInfo *info) +{ +PCDIMMDeviceInfo *di =g_new0 (PCDIMMDeviceInfo,1 ); +DeviceClass *dc =DEVICE_GET_CLASS (md); +PCDIMMDevice *dimm =PC_DIMM (md); +DeviceState *dev =DEVICE (md); + +if (dev->id) { + di->has_id = true; + di->id =g_strdup (dev->id); + } + di->hotplugged = dev->hotplugged; + di->hotpluggable = dc->hotpluggable; + di->addr = dimm->addr; + di->slot = dimm->slot; + di->node = dimm->node; + di->size =object_property_get_uint (OBJECT (dimm),PC_DIMM_SIZE_PROP , +NULL ); + di->memdev =object_get_canonical_path (OBJECT (dimm->hostmem)); + +if (object_dynamic_cast (OBJECT (dev),TYPE_NVDIMM )) { + info->u.nvdimm.data = di; + info->type =MEMORY_DEVICE_INFO_KIND_NVDIMM ; + }else { + info->u.dimm.data = di; + info->type =MEMORY_DEVICE_INFO_KIND_DIMM ; + } +} +static void pc_dimm_class_init (ObjectClass *oc,void *data) {DeviceClass *dc =DEVICE_CLASS (oc);PCDIMMDeviceClass *ddc =PC_DIMM_CLASS (oc); +MemoryDeviceClass *mdc =MEMORY_DEVICE_CLASS (oc);dc->realize = pc_dimm_realize; dc->unrealize = pc_dimm_unrealize;hw/mem/pc-dimm.c +6
-0@@ -457,6 +454,12 @@ static void pc_dimm_class_init(ObjectClass *oc, void *data) ddc->get_memory_region = pc_dimm_get_memory_region; ddc->get_vmstate_memory_region = pc_dimm_get_vmstate_memory_region; + + mdc->get_addr = pc_dimm_md_get_addr; +/* for a dimm plugged_size == region_size */ + mdc->get_plugged_size = pc_dimm_md_get_region_size; + mdc->get_region_size = pc_dimm_md_get_region_size; + mdc->fill_device_info = pc_dimm_md_fill_device_info; }static TypeInfo
pc_dimm_info= {hw/mem/pc-dimm.c +4
-0@@ -466,6 +469,10 @@ static TypeInfo pc_dimm_info = { .instance_init = pc_dimm_init, .class_init = pc_dimm_class_init, .class_size = sizeof(PCDIMMDeviceClass), + .interfaces = (InterfaceInfo []) { + {TYPE_MEMORY_DEVICE }, + { } + }, };static void pc_dimm_register_types (void )hw/ppc/spapr.c +2
-1@@ -74,6 +74,7 @@#include "hw/compat.h" #include "qemu/cutils.h" #include "hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.h" +#include "hw/mem/memory-device.h" #include <libfdt.h> @@ -722,7 +723,7 @@ static int spapr_populate_drconf_memory(sPAPRMachineState *spapr, void *fdt) }if (hotplug_lmb_start) { - dimms =qmp_pc_dimm_device_list (); + dimms =qmp_memory_device_list (); }/* ibm,dynamic-memory */hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c +1
-0@@ -14,6 +14,7 @@#include "kvm_ppc.h" #include "hw/ppc/spapr_ovec.h" #include "mmu-book3s-v3.h" +#include "hw/mem/memory-device.h" struct SPRSyncState {int spr;include/hw/mem/memory-device.h new file +27
-0@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@ +/* +* Memory Device Interface +* +* Copyright (c) 2018 Red Hat, Inc. +* +* Authors: +* David Hildenbrand <[email protected]> +* +* This work is licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL, version 2 or later. +* See the COPYING file in the top-level directory. +*/ + +#ifndef MEMORY_DEVICE_H +#define MEMORY_DEVICE_H + +#include "qom/object.h" +#include "hw/qdev.h" + +#define TYPE_MEMORY_DEVICE "memory-device" + +#define MEMORY_DEVICE_CLASS (klass) \ + OBJECT_CLASS_CHECK(MemoryDeviceClass, (klass), TYPE_MEMORY_DEVICE) +#define MEMORY_DEVICE_GET_CLASS (obj) \ + OBJECT_GET_CLASS(MemoryDeviceClass, (obj), TYPE_MEMORY_DEVICE) +#define MEMORY_DEVICE (obj) \ + INTERFACE_CHECK(MemoryDeviceState, (obj), TYPE_MEMORY_DEVICE) +
include/hw/mem/memory-device.h line 37
Quoted 10 lines
include/hw/mem/memory-device.h new file +10
-0+typedef struct MemoryDeviceState { +Object parent_obj; +}MemoryDeviceState ; + +typedef struct MemoryDeviceClass { + InterfaceClass parent_class; + + uint64_t (*get_addr)(MemoryDeviceState *md); + uint64_t (*get_plugged_size)(MemoryDeviceState *md, Error **errp); + uint64_t (*get_region_size)(MemoryDeviceState *md, Error **errp);
Just not sure if we need second argument 'Error **errp'? Or all functions declarations should have this?
Quoted 102 lines
include/hw/mem/memory-device.h new file +7
-0+ void (*fill_device_info)(MemoryDeviceState *md, MemoryDeviceInfo *info); +} MemoryDeviceClass; + +MemoryDeviceInfoList *qmp_memory_device_list (void ); +uint64_t get_plugged_memory_size (void ); + +#endif include/hw/mem/pc-dimm.h +0
-2@@ -93,9 +93,7 @@ uint64_t pc_dimm_get_free_addr(uint64_t address_space_start, int pc_dimm_get_free_slot(const int *hint, int max_slots, Error **errp); -MemoryDeviceInfoList *qmp_pc_dimm_device_list (void );uint64_t pc_existing_dimms_capacity (Error **errp); -uint64_t get_plugged_memory_size (void );void pc_dimm_memory_plug (DeviceState *dev,MemoryHotplugState *hpms,MemoryRegion *mr,uint64_t align,Error **errp);void pc_dimm_memory_unplug(DeviceState *dev, MemoryHotplugState *hpms,
numa.c +2
-1@@ -36,6 +36,7 @@#include "hw/boards.h" #include "sysemu/hostmem.h" #include "hw/mem/pc-dimm.h" +#include "hw/mem/memory-device.h" #include "qemu/option.h" #include "qemu/config-file.h" #include "qemu/cutils.h" @@ -520,7 +521,7 @@ void memory_region_allocate_system_memory(MemoryRegion *mr, Object *owner, static void numa_stat_memory_devices(NumaNodeMem node_mem[]) { -MemoryDeviceInfoList *info_list =qmp_pc_dimm_device_list (); +MemoryDeviceInfoList *info_list =qmp_memory_device_list ();MemoryDeviceInfoList *info;PCDIMMDeviceInfo *pcdimm_info;qmp.c +2
-2@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@#include "qapi/qobject-input-visitor.h" #include "hw/boards.h" #include "qom/object_interfaces.h" -#include "hw/mem/pc-dimm.h" +#include "hw/mem/memory-device.h" #include "hw/acpi/acpi_dev_interface.h" NameInfo *qmp_query_name (Error **errp)@@ -731,7 +731,7 @@ void qmp_object_del(const char *id, Error **errp)MemoryDeviceInfoList *qmp_query_memory_devices (Error **errp) { -return qmp_pc_dimm_device_list (); +return qmp_memory_device_list (); }ACPIOSTInfoList *qmp_query_acpi_ospm_status (Error **errp)stubs/Makefile.objs +1
-1@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ stub-obj-y += uuid.o stub-obj-y += vm-stop.o stub-obj-y += vmstate.o stub-obj-$(CONFIG_WIN32) += fd-register.o -stub-obj-y += qmp_pc_dimm.o +stub-obj-y += qmp_memory_device.o stub-obj-y += target-monitor-defs.o stub-obj-y += target-get-monitor-def.o stub-obj-y += pc_madt_cpu_entry.ostubs/qmp_memory_device.c renamed from stubs/qmp_pc_dimm.c +2
-3@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@#include "qemu/osdep.h" #include "qom/object.h" -#include "hw/mem/pc-dimm.h" +#include "hw/mem/memory-device.h" -MemoryDeviceInfoList *qmp_pc_dimm_device_list (void ) +MemoryDeviceInfoList *qmp_memory_device_list (void ) {return NULL ; } --2.14.3
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 1/3] pc-dimm: factor out MemoryDevice interface
Quoted 9 lines
include/hw/mem/memory-device.h line 37
Quoted 6 lines
include/hw/mem/memory-device.h new file +6
-0+typedef struct MemoryDeviceClass { + InterfaceClass parent_class; + + uint64_t (*get_addr)(MemoryDeviceState *md); + uint64_t (*get_plugged_size)(MemoryDeviceState *md, Error **errp); + uint64_t (*get_region_size)(MemoryDeviceState *md, Error **errp);Just not sure if we need second argument 'Error **errp'? Or all functions declarations should have this?
We need them right now due to the existing implementation of PCDIMM. I don't think we will ever hit such a case (not if anything else is seriously wrong). If nobody has a problem with it, I'll drop these two parameters and directly use &error_abort internally (PCDIMM).
Adding Error **errp to functions where we don't expect to be errors doesn't feel right.
Thanks for pointing this out!
Signature · 3 lines
Thanks, David / dhildenb
PATCH v3 2/3 machine: make MemoryHotplugState accessible via the machine
In reply to David HildenbrandLet's allow to query the MemoryHotplugState from the machine.
This allows us to generically detect if a certain machine has support for memory devices, and to generically manage it (find free address range, plug/unplug a memory region).
--- hw/i386/pc.c | 12 ++++++++++++ hw/ppc/spapr.c | 12 ++++++++++++ include/hw/boards.h | 16 ++++++++++++++++ include/hw/mem/pc-dimm.h | 12 +----------- 4 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
hw/i386/pc.c +12 -0
@@ -2337,6 +2337,17 @@ static void x86_nmi(NMIState *n, int cpu_index, Error **errp) } } +static MemoryHotplugState *pc_machine_get_memory_hotplug_state (MachineState *ms) +{ +PCMachineState *pcms =PC_MACHINE (ms); + +if (!pcms->hotplug_memory.base) { +/* hotplug not supported */ +return NULL ; + } +return &pcms->hotplug_memory; +} +static void pc_machine_class_init (ObjectClass *oc,void *data) {MachineClass *mc =MACHINE_CLASS (oc);
@@ -2376,6 +2387,7 @@ static void pc_machine_class_init(ObjectClass *oc, void *data) hc->unplug = pc_machine_device_unplug_cb; nc->nmi_monitor_handler = x86_nmi; mc->default_cpu_type =TARGET_DEFAULT_CPU_TYPE ; + mc->get_memory_hotplug_state = pc_machine_get_memory_hotplug_state; object_class_property_add(oc, PC_MACHINE_MEMHP_REGION_SIZE, "int", pc_machine_get_hotplug_memory_region_size, NULL,
hw/ppc/spapr.c +12 -0
@@ -3868,6 +3868,17 @@ PowerPCCPU *spapr_find_cpu(int vcpu_id)return NULL ; } +static MemoryHotplugState *spapr_get_memory_hotplug_state (MachineState *ms) +{ +sPAPRMachineState *spapr =SPAPR_MACHINE (ms); + +if (!spapr->hotplug_memory.base) { +/* hotplug not supported */ +return NULL ; + } +return &spapr->hotplug_memory; +} +static void spapr_machine_class_init (ObjectClass *oc,void *data) {MachineClass *mc =MACHINE_CLASS (oc);
@@ -3927,6 +3938,7 @@ static void spapr_machine_class_init(ObjectClass *oc, void *data)* in which LMBs are represented and hot-added */ mc->numa_mem_align_shift =28 ; + mc->get_memory_hotplug_state = spapr_get_memory_hotplug_state; smc->default_caps.caps[SPAPR_CAP_HTM ] =SPAPR_CAP_OFF ; smc->default_caps.caps[SPAPR_CAP_VSX ] =SPAPR_CAP_ON ;
include/hw/boards.h +16 -0
@@ -105,6 +105,17 @@ typedef struct {CPUArchId cpus[0 ]; } CPUArchIdList; +/** +* MemoryHotplugState: +* @base: address in guest physical address space where hotplug memory +* address space begins. +* @mr: hotplug memory address space container +*/ +typedef struct MemoryHotplugState { +hwaddr base; +MemoryRegion mr; +}MemoryHotplugState ; +/** * MachineClass: * @max_cpus: maximum number of CPUs supported. Default: 1
@@ -156,6 +167,10 @@ typedef struct {* should instead use "unimplemented-device" for all memory ranges where * the guest will attempt to probe for a device that QEMU doesn't * implement and a stub device is required. +* @get_memory_hotplug_state: +* If a machine support memory hotplug, the returned data ontains +* information about the portion of guest physical address space +* where memory devices can be mapped to (e.g. to hotplug a pc-dimm). */ struct MachineClass {/*< private >*/
@@ -212,6 +227,7 @@ struct MachineClass { unsigned cpu_index);const CPUArchIdList *(*possible_cpu_arch_ids)(MachineState *machine);int64_t (*get_default_cpu_node_id)(const MachineState *ms,int idx); + MemoryHotplugState *(*get_memory_hotplug_state)(MachineState *ms); };/**
include/hw/mem/pc-dimm.h +1 -11
@@ -19,6 +19,7 @@#include "exec/memory.h" #include "sysemu/hostmem.h" #include "hw/qdev.h" +#include "hw/boards.h" #define TYPE_PC_DIMM "pc-dimm"#define PC_DIMM (obj) \
@@ -75,17 +76,6 @@ typedef struct PCDIMMDeviceClass { MemoryRegion *(*get_vmstate_memory_region)(PCDIMMDevice *dimm); } PCDIMMDeviceClass; -/** -* MemoryHotplugState: -* @base: address in guest physical address space where hotplug memory -* address space begins. -* @mr: hotplug memory address space container -*/ -typedef struct MemoryHotplugState { -hwaddr base; -MemoryRegion mr; -}MemoryHotplugState ; - uint64_t pc_dimm_get_free_addr(uint64_t address_space_start, uint64_t address_space_size, uint64_t *hint, uint64_t align, uint64_t size,
Signature · 1 line
2.14.3
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 2/3] machine: make MemoryHotplugState accessible via the machine
Quoted 7 lines · David Hildenbrand
Let's allow to query the MemoryHotplugState from the machine.
This allows us to generically detect if a certain machine has support for memory devices, and to generically manage it (find free address range, plug/unplug a memory region).
Signed-off-by David Hildenbrand <[email protected]>
So, we're creating a hook where it seems very likely that the only implementationss will be simply to retrieve the right field from the machine specific structure.
So.. should we instead just move the hotplug_memory structure to the based MachineState type?
Quoted 138 lines
--- hw/i386/pc.c | 12 ++++++++++++ hw/ppc/spapr.c | 12 ++++++++++++ include/hw/boards.h | 16 ++++++++++++++++ include/hw/mem/pc-dimm.h | 12 +----------- 4 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)hw/i386/pc.c +12
-0@@ -2337,6 +2337,17 @@ static void x86_nmi(NMIState *n, int cpu_index, Error **errp) } } +static MemoryHotplugState *pc_machine_get_memory_hotplug_state (MachineState *ms) +{ +PCMachineState *pcms =PC_MACHINE (ms); + +if (!pcms->hotplug_memory.base) { +/* hotplug not supported */ +return NULL ; + } +return &pcms->hotplug_memory; +} +static void pc_machine_class_init (ObjectClass *oc,void *data) {MachineClass *mc =MACHINE_CLASS (oc);@@ -2376,6 +2387,7 @@ static void pc_machine_class_init(ObjectClass *oc, void *data) hc->unplug = pc_machine_device_unplug_cb; nc->nmi_monitor_handler = x86_nmi; mc->default_cpu_type =TARGET_DEFAULT_CPU_TYPE ; + mc->get_memory_hotplug_state = pc_machine_get_memory_hotplug_state; object_class_property_add(oc, PC_MACHINE_MEMHP_REGION_SIZE, "int", pc_machine_get_hotplug_memory_region_size, NULL,hw/ppc/spapr.c +12
-0@@ -3868,6 +3868,17 @@ PowerPCCPU *spapr_find_cpu(int vcpu_id)return NULL ; } +static MemoryHotplugState *spapr_get_memory_hotplug_state (MachineState *ms) +{ +sPAPRMachineState *spapr =SPAPR_MACHINE (ms); + +if (!spapr->hotplug_memory.base) { +/* hotplug not supported */ +return NULL ; + } +return &spapr->hotplug_memory; +} +static void spapr_machine_class_init (ObjectClass *oc,void *data) {MachineClass *mc =MACHINE_CLASS (oc);@@ -3927,6 +3938,7 @@ static void spapr_machine_class_init(ObjectClass *oc, void *data)* in which LMBs are represented and hot-added */ mc->numa_mem_align_shift =28 ; + mc->get_memory_hotplug_state = spapr_get_memory_hotplug_state; smc->default_caps.caps[SPAPR_CAP_HTM ] =SPAPR_CAP_OFF ; smc->default_caps.caps[SPAPR_CAP_VSX ] =SPAPR_CAP_ON ;include/hw/boards.h +16
-0@@ -105,6 +105,17 @@ typedef struct {CPUArchId cpus[0 ]; } CPUArchIdList; +/** +* MemoryHotplugState: +* @base: address in guest physical address space where hotplug memory +* address space begins. +* @mr: hotplug memory address space container +*/ +typedef struct MemoryHotplugState { +hwaddr base; +MemoryRegion mr; +}MemoryHotplugState ; +/** * MachineClass: * @max_cpus: maximum number of CPUs supported. Default: 1 @@ -156,6 +167,10 @@ typedef struct {* should instead use "unimplemented-device" for all memory ranges where * the guest will attempt to probe for a device that QEMU doesn't * implement and a stub device is required. +* @get_memory_hotplug_state: +* If a machine support memory hotplug, the returned data ontains +* information about the portion of guest physical address space +* where memory devices can be mapped to (e.g. to hotplug a pc-dimm). */ struct MachineClass {/*< private >*/ @@ -212,6 +227,7 @@ struct MachineClass { unsigned cpu_index);const CPUArchIdList *(*possible_cpu_arch_ids)(MachineState *machine);int64_t (*get_default_cpu_node_id)(const MachineState *ms,int idx); + MemoryHotplugState *(*get_memory_hotplug_state)(MachineState *ms); };/** include/hw/mem/pc-dimm.h +1
-11@@ -19,6 +19,7 @@#include "exec/memory.h" #include "sysemu/hostmem.h" #include "hw/qdev.h" +#include "hw/boards.h" #define TYPE_PC_DIMM "pc-dimm"#define PC_DIMM (obj) \@@ -75,17 +76,6 @@ typedef struct PCDIMMDeviceClass { MemoryRegion *(*get_vmstate_memory_region)(PCDIMMDevice *dimm); } PCDIMMDeviceClass; -/** -* MemoryHotplugState: -* @base: address in guest physical address space where hotplug memory -* address space begins. -* @mr: hotplug memory address space container -*/ -typedef struct MemoryHotplugState { -hwaddr base; -MemoryRegion mr; -}MemoryHotplugState ; - uint64_t pc_dimm_get_free_addr(uint64_t address_space_start, uint64_t address_space_size, uint64_t *hint, uint64_t align, uint64_t size,
Signature · 4 lines
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 2/3] machine: make MemoryHotplugState accessible via the machine
Quoted 7 lines · David Gibson
Quoted 6 lines · David Hildenbrand
Let's allow to query the MemoryHotplugState from the machine.
This allows us to generically detect if a certain machine has support for memory devices, and to generically manage it (find free address range, plug/unplug a memory region).
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 1 line
Signed-off-by David Hildenbrand <[email protected]>So, we're creating a hook where it seems very likely that the only implementationss will be simply to retrieve the right field from the machine specific structure.
So.. should we instead just move the
hotplug_memorystructure to the based MachineState type?
It allows us in patch nr. 3 to report different error messages.
"Not supported" vs. "Not enabled (maxmem)".
We could also handle that via a simple boolean flag inside of the struct. What do you think?
Signature · 3 lines
Thanks, David / dhildenb
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 2/3] machine: make MemoryHotplugState accessible via the machine
Quoted 17 lines · David Hildenbrand
Quoted 7 lines · David Gibson
Quoted 6 lines · David Hildenbrand
Let's allow to query the MemoryHotplugState from the machine.
This allows us to generically detect if a certain machine has support for memory devices, and to generically manage it (find free address range, plug/unplug a memory region).
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 1 line
Signed-off-by David Hildenbrand <[email protected]>So, we're creating a hook where it seems very likely that the only implementationss will be simply to retrieve the right field from the machine specific structure.
So.. should we instead just move the
hotplug_memorystructure to the based MachineState type?
Quoted 6 lines
It allows us in patch nr. 3 to report different error messages.
"Not supported" vs. "Not enabled (maxmem)".
We could also handle that via a simple boolean flag inside of the struct. What do you think?
A third option would be to make it a pointer, rather than directly embedded in the MachineState. That would also avoid the extra allocation for machines that don't use it.
Signature · 4 lines
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 2/3] machine: make MemoryHotplugState accessible via the machine
Quoted 20 lines · David Gibson
Quoted 19 lines · David Hildenbrand
Quoted 7 lines · David Gibson
Quoted 6 lines · David Hildenbrand
Let's allow to query the MemoryHotplugState from the machine.
This allows us to generically detect if a certain machine has support for memory devices, and to generically manage it (find free address range, plug/unplug a memory region).
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 1 line
Signed-off-by David Hildenbrand <[email protected]>So, we're creating a hook where it seems very likely that the only implementationss will be simply to retrieve the right field from the machine specific structure.
So.. should we instead just move the
hotplug_memorystructure to the based MachineState type?It allows us in patch nr. 3 to report different error messages.
Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 4 lines
"Not supported" vs. "Not enabled (maxmem)".
We could also handle that via a simple boolean flag inside of the struct. What do you think?
A third option would be to make it a pointer, rather than directly embedded in the MachineState. That would also avoid the extra allocation for machines that don't use it.
That sounds like a good alternative, will look into it! Thanks!
Signature · 3 lines
Thanks, David / dhildenb
PATCH v3 3/3 pc-dimm: factor out address space logic into MemoryDevice code
In reply to David HildenbrandTo be able to reuse MemoryDevice logic from other devices besides pc-dimm, factor the relevant stuff out into the MemoryDevice code.
As we don't care about slots for memory devices that are not pc-dimm, don't factor that part out.
Most of this patch just moves checks and logic around. While at it, make the code properly detect certain error conditions better (e.g. fragmented memory).
--- hw/i386/pc.c | 12 +-- hw/mem/memory-device.c | 162 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ hw/mem/pc-dimm.c | 185 +++-------------------------------------- hw/ppc/spapr.c | 9 +- include/hw/mem/memory-device.h | 4 + include/hw/mem/pc-dimm.h | 14 +--- 6 files changed, 185 insertions(+), 201 deletions(-)
hw/i386/pc.c +2 -10
@@ -1711,7 +1711,7 @@ static void pc_dimm_plug(HotplugHandler *hotplug_dev, goto out; } -pc_dimm_memory_plug (dev, &pcms->hotplug_memory, mr, align, &local_err); +pc_dimm_memory_plug (dev, align, &local_err);if (local_err) { goto out; }
@@ -1761,17 +1761,9 @@ static void pc_dimm_unplug(HotplugHandler *hotplug_dev, DeviceState *dev, Error **errp) {PCMachineState *pcms =PC_MACHINE (hotplug_dev); -PCDIMMDevice *dimm =PC_DIMM (dev); -PCDIMMDeviceClass *ddc =PC_DIMM_GET_CLASS (dimm); -MemoryRegion *mr;HotplugHandlerClass *hhc;Error *local_err =NULL ; - mr = ddc->get_memory_region (dimm, &local_err); -if (local_err) { - goto out; - } - hhc =HOTPLUG_HANDLER_GET_CLASS (pcms->acpi_dev); hhc->unplug (HOTPLUG_HANDLER (pcms->acpi_dev), dev, &local_err);
@@ -1779,7 +1771,7 @@ static void pc_dimm_unplug(HotplugHandler *hotplug_dev, goto out; } -pc_dimm_memory_unplug (dev, &pcms->hotplug_memory, mr); +pc_dimm_memory_unplug (dev);object_unparent (OBJECT (dev)); out:
hw/mem/memory-device.c +162 -0
174 lines not on this page · raw message
hw/mem/pc-dimm.c +12 -173
242 lines not on this page · raw message
hw/ppc/spapr.c +3 -6
@@ -3041,7 +3041,7 @@ static void spapr_memory_plug(HotplugHandler *hotplug_dev, DeviceState *dev, align =memory_region_get_alignment (mr); size =memory_region_size (mr); -pc_dimm_memory_plug (dev, &ms->hotplug_memory, mr, align, &local_err); +pc_dimm_memory_plug (dev, align, &local_err);if (local_err) { goto out; }
@@ -3062,7 +3062,7 @@ static void spapr_memory_plug(HotplugHandler *hotplug_dev, DeviceState *dev,return ; out_unplug: -pc_dimm_memory_unplug (dev, &ms->hotplug_memory, mr); +pc_dimm_memory_unplug (dev); out:error_propagate (errp, local_err); }
@@ -3180,9 +3180,6 @@ static sPAPRDIMMState *spapr_recover_pending_dimm_state(sPAPRMachineState *ms,void spapr_lmb_release (DeviceState *dev) {sPAPRMachineState *spapr =SPAPR_MACHINE (qdev_get_hotplug_handler (dev)); -PCDIMMDevice *dimm =PC_DIMM (dev); -PCDIMMDeviceClass *ddc =PC_DIMM_GET_CLASS (dimm); -MemoryRegion *mr = ddc->get_memory_region (dimm, &error_abort);sPAPRDIMMState *ds =spapr_pending_dimm_unplugs_find (spapr,PC_DIMM (dev));/* This information will get lost if a migration occurs
@@ -3202,7 +3199,7 @@ void spapr_lmb_release(DeviceState *dev)* Now that all the LMBs have been removed by the guest, call the * pc-dimm unplug handler to cleanup up the pc-dimm device. */ -pc_dimm_memory_unplug (dev, &spapr->hotplug_memory, mr); +pc_dimm_memory_unplug (dev);object_unparent (OBJECT (dev));spapr_pending_dimm_unplugs_remove (spapr, ds); }
include/hw/mem/memory-device.h +4 -0
@@ -40,5 +40,9 @@ typedef struct MemoryDeviceClass {MemoryDeviceInfoList *qmp_memory_device_list (void );uint64_t get_plugged_memory_size (void ); +uint64_t memory_device_get_free_addr (uint64_t *hint,uint64_t align, +uint64_t size,Error **errp); +void memory_device_plug_region (MemoryRegion *mr,uint64_t addr,Error **errp); +void memory_device_unplug_region (MemoryRegion *mr);#endif
include/hw/mem/pc-dimm.h +2 -12
@@ -19,7 +19,6 @@#include "exec/memory.h" #include "sysemu/hostmem.h" #include "hw/qdev.h" -#include "hw/boards.h" #define TYPE_PC_DIMM "pc-dimm"#define PC_DIMM (obj) \
@@ -76,16 +75,7 @@ typedef struct PCDIMMDeviceClass { MemoryRegion *(*get_vmstate_memory_region)(PCDIMMDevice *dimm); } PCDIMMDeviceClass; -uint64_t pc_dimm_get_free_addr (uint64_t address_space_start, -uint64_t address_space_size, -uint64_t *hint,uint64_t align,uint64_t size, -Error **errp); -int pc_dimm_get_free_slot (const int *hint,int max_slots,Error **errp); - -uint64_t pc_existing_dimms_capacity (Error **errp); -void pc_dimm_memory_plug (DeviceState *dev,MemoryHotplugState *hpms, -MemoryRegion *mr,uint64_t align,Error **errp); -void pc_dimm_memory_unplug (DeviceState *dev,MemoryHotplugState *hpms, -MemoryRegion *mr); +void pc_dimm_memory_plug (DeviceState *dev,uint64_t align,Error **errp); +void pc_dimm_memory_unplug (DeviceState *dev);#endif
Signature · 1 line
2.14.3
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 3/3] pc-dimm: factor out address space logic into MemoryDevice code
Quoted 5 lines · On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 14:34:56 +0200 David Hildenbrand <[email protected]> wrote:
To be able to reuse MemoryDevice logic from other devices besides pc-dimm, factor the relevant stuff out into the MemoryDevice code.
As we don't care about slots for memory devices that are not pc-dimm, don't factor that part out.
that's not really true, you still consume kvm and vhost slots (whatever it is) whenever you map it into address space as ram memory region.
Also ram_slots currently are (ab)used as flag that user enabled memory hotplug via CLI.
Quoted 3 lines
Most of this patch just moves checks and logic around. While at it, make the code properly detect certain error conditions better (e.g. fragmented memory).
I'd suggest splitting patch in several smaller ones if possible, especially parts that do anything more than just moving code around.
Quoted 15 lines
Signed-off-by David Hildenbrand <[email protected]>--- hw/i386/pc.c | 12 +-- hw/mem/memory-device.c | 162 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ hw/mem/pc-dimm.c | 185 +++-------------------------------------- hw/ppc/spapr.c | 9 +- include/hw/mem/memory-device.h | 4 + include/hw/mem/pc-dimm.h | 14 +--- 6 files changed, 185 insertions(+), 201 deletions(-)hw/i386/pc.c +0
-0
hw/i386/pc.c static void pc_dimm_plug(HotplugHandler *hotplug_dev, · line 1714
Quoted 5 lines
hw/i386/pc.c +1
-1@@ -1711,7 +1711,7 @@ static void pc_dimm_plug(HotplugHandler *hotplug_dev, goto out; } -pc_dimm_memory_plug (dev, &pcms->hotplug_memory, mr, align, &local_err); +pc_dimm_memory_plug (dev, align, &local_err);
Is there a reason why you are dropping pcms->hotplug_memory argument and fall back to qdev_get_machine()?
I'd rather see it going other direction,
i.e. move hotplug_memory from PC
machine to MachineState and then pass it down as argument whenever it's needed.
Quoted 22 lines
hw/i386/pc.c +0
-8if (local_err) { goto out; }@@ -1761,17 +1761,9 @@ static void pc_dimm_unplug(HotplugHandler *hotplug_dev, DeviceState *dev, Error **errp) {PCMachineState *pcms =PC_MACHINE (hotplug_dev); -PCDIMMDevice *dimm =PC_DIMM (dev); -PCDIMMDeviceClass *ddc =PC_DIMM_GET_CLASS (dimm); -MemoryRegion *mr;HotplugHandlerClass *hhc;Error *local_err =NULL ; - mr = ddc->get_memory_region (dimm, &local_err); -if (local_err) { - goto out; - } - hhc =HOTPLUG_HANDLER_GET_CLASS (pcms->acpi_dev); hhc->unplug (HOTPLUG_HANDLER (pcms->acpi_dev), dev, &local_err);
hw/i386/pc.c static void pc_dimm_unplug(HotplugHandler *hotplug_dev, · line 1774
Quoted 5 lines
hw/i386/pc.c +1
-1@@ -1779,7 +1771,7 @@ static void pc_dimm_unplug(HotplugHandler *hotplug_dev, goto out; } -pc_dimm_memory_unplug (dev, &pcms->hotplug_memory, mr); +pc_dimm_memory_unplug (dev);
ditto
Quoted 39 lines
hw/i386/pc.c +0
-0object_unparent (OBJECT (dev)); out:hw/mem/memory-device.c +21
-0@@ -15,6 +15,8 @@#include "qapi/error.h" #include "hw/boards.h" #include "qemu/range.h" +#include "hw/virtio/vhost.h" +#include "sysemu/kvm.h" static gint memory_device_addr_sort (gconstpointer a,gconstpointer b) {@@ -106,6 +108,166 @@ uint64_t get_plugged_memory_size(void)return size; } +static int memory_device_used_region_size_internal (Object *obj,void *opaque) +{ +uint64_t *size = opaque; + +if (object_dynamic_cast (obj,TYPE_MEMORY_DEVICE )) { +DeviceState *dev =DEVICE (obj); +MemoryDeviceState *md =MEMORY_DEVICE (obj); +MemoryDeviceClass *mdc =MEMORY_DEVICE_GET_CLASS (obj); + +if (dev->realized) { + *size += mdc->get_region_size (md, &error_abort); + } + } + +object_child_foreach (obj, memory_device_used_region_size_internal, opaque); +return 0 ; +} + +static uint64_t memory_device_used_region_size (void )
hw/mem/memory-device.c uint64_t get_plugged_memory_size(void) · line 139
Quoted 10 lines
hw/mem/memory-device.c +10
-0+{ +uint64_t size =0 ; + +memory_device_used_region_size_internal (qdev_get_machine (), &size); + +return size; +} + +uint64_t memory_device_get_free_addr (uint64_t *hint,uint64_t align, +uint64_t size,Error **errp)
I'd suggest to pc_dimm_memory_plug/pc_dimm_get_free_addr first, namely most of the stuff it does like checks and assigning default values should go to pre_plug (pre realize) handler and then only actual mapping is left for plug (after realize) handler to deal with:
memory_region_add_subregion(&hpms->mr, addr - hpms->base, mr);
vmstate_register_ram(vmstate_mr, dev); Quoted 11 lines
hw/mem/memory-device.c +11
-0+{ +const uint64_t used_region_size =memory_device_used_region_size (); +uint64_t address_space_start, address_space_end; +MachineState *machine =MACHINE (qdev_get_machine ()); +MachineClass *mc =MACHINE_GET_CLASS (machine); +MemoryHotplugState *hpms; +GSList *list =NULL , *item; +uint64_t new_addr =0 ; + +if (!mc->get_memory_hotplug_state) { + error_setg(errp, "memory devices (e.g. for memory hotplug) are not "
hw/mem/memory-device.c uint64_t get_plugged_memory_size(void) · line 160
Quoted 10 lines
hw/mem/memory-device.c +10
-0+ "supported by the machine"); +return 0 ; + } + + hpms = mc->get_memory_hotplug_state (machine); +if (!hpms || !memory_region_size (&hpms->mr)) { +error_setg (errp,"memory devices (e.g. for memory hotplug) are not " +"enabled, please specify the maxmem option" ); +return 0 ; + }
above 2 checks are repeated multiple times separate helper to do it would be better.
PS:
there is no need to check for it every time device is plugged, doing this check once (at machine_init time) is sufficient.
Quoted 74 lines
hw/mem/memory-device.c +74
-0+ address_space_start = hpms->base; + address_space_end = address_space_start +memory_region_size (&hpms->mr); +g_assert (address_space_end >= address_space_start); + +if (used_region_size + size > machine->maxram_size - machine->ram_size) { +error_setg (errp,"not enough space, currently 0x%" PRIx64 +" in use of total hot pluggable 0x" RAM_ADDR_FMT , + used_region_size, machine->maxram_size - machine->ram_size); +return 0 ; + } + +if (hint &&QEMU_ALIGN_UP (*hint, align) != *hint) { +error_setg (errp,"address must be aligned to 0x%" PRIx64" bytes" , + align); +return 0 ; + } + +if (QEMU_ALIGN_UP (size, align) != size) { +error_setg (errp,"backend memory size must be multiple of 0x%" + PRIx64, align); +return 0 ; + } + +if (hint) { + new_addr = *hint; +if (new_addr < address_space_start) { +error_setg (errp,"can't add memory [0x%" PRIx64":0x%" PRIx64 +"] at 0x%" PRIx64, new_addr, size, address_space_start); +return 0 ; + }else if ((new_addr + size) > address_space_end) { +error_setg (errp,"can't add memory [0x%" PRIx64":0x%" PRIx64 +"] beyond 0x%" PRIx64, new_addr, size, + address_space_end); +return 0 ; + } + }else { + new_addr = address_space_start; + } + +/* find address range that will fit new memory device */ +object_child_foreach (qdev_get_machine (), memory_device_built_list, &list); +for (item = list; item; item =g_slist_next (item)) { +MemoryDeviceState *md = item->data; +MemoryDeviceClass *mdc =MEMORY_DEVICE_GET_CLASS (OBJECT (md)); +uint64_t md_size, md_addr; + + md_addr = mdc->get_addr (md); + md_size = mdc->get_region_size (md, errp); +if (*errp) { + goto out; + } + +if (ranges_overlap (md_addr, md_size, new_addr, size)) { +if (hint) { +DeviceState *d =DEVICE (md); +error_setg (errp,"address range conflicts with '%s'" , d->id); + goto out; + } + new_addr =QEMU_ALIGN_UP (md_addr + md_size, align); + } + } + +if (new_addr + size > address_space_end) { +error_setg (errp,"could not find position in guest address space for " +"memory device - memory fragmented due to alignments" ); + goto out; + } +out: +g_slist_free (list); +return new_addr; +} + +void memory_device_plug_region (MemoryRegion *mr,uint64_t addr,Error **errp) +{
[...]
hw/mem/memory-device.c uint64_t get_plugged_memory_size(void) · line 252
Quoted 9 lines
hw/mem/memory-device.c +9
-0+/* we will need a new memory slot for kvm and vhost */ +if (kvm_enabled () && !kvm_has_free_slot (machine)) { +error_setg (errp,"hypervisor has no free memory slots left" ); +return ; + } +if (!vhost_has_free_slot ()) { +error_setg (errp,"a used vhost backend has no free memory slots left" ); +return ; + }
move these checks to pre_plug time
hw/mem/memory-device.c
Quoted 2 lines
hw/mem/memory-device.c +2
-0+ +memory_region_add_subregion (&hpms->mr, addr - hpms->base, mr);
missing vmstate registration?
Quoted 355 lines
hw/mem/memory-device.c +16
-0+} + +void memory_device_unplug_region (MemoryRegion *mr) +{ +MachineState *machine =MACHINE (qdev_get_machine ()); +MachineClass *mc =MACHINE_GET_CLASS (machine); +MemoryHotplugState *hpms; + +/* we expect a previous call to memory_device_get_free_addr() */ +g_assert (mc->get_memory_hotplug_state); + hpms = mc->get_memory_hotplug_state (machine); +g_assert (hpms); + +memory_region_del_subregion (&hpms->mr, mr); +} +static const TypeInfo memory_device_info = { .name =TYPE_MEMORY_DEVICE , .parent =TYPE_INTERFACE ,hw/mem/pc-dimm.c +12
-173@@ -25,19 +25,10 @@#include "qapi/error.h" #include "qemu/config-file.h" #include "qapi/visitor.h" -#include "qemu/range.h" #include "sysemu/numa.h" -#include "sysemu/kvm.h" #include "trace.h" -#include "hw/virtio/vhost.h" -typedef struct pc_dimms_capacity { -uint64_t size; -Error **errp; -}pc_dimms_capacity ; - -void pc_dimm_memory_plug (DeviceState *dev,MemoryHotplugState *hpms, -MemoryRegion *mr,uint64_t align,Error **errp) +void pc_dimm_memory_plug (DeviceState *dev,uint64_t align,Error **errp) {int slot;MachineState *machine =MACHINE (qdev_get_machine ());@@ -45,37 +36,26 @@ void pc_dimm_memory_plug(DeviceState *dev, MemoryHotplugState *hpms,PCDIMMDeviceClass *ddc =PC_DIMM_GET_CLASS (dimm);MemoryRegion *vmstate_mr = ddc->get_vmstate_memory_region (dimm);Error *local_err =NULL ; -uint64_t existing_dimms_capacity =0 ; +MemoryRegion *mr;uint64_t addr; - addr =object_property_get_uint (OBJECT (dimm), -PC_DIMM_ADDR_PROP , &local_err); + mr = ddc->get_memory_region (dimm, &local_err);if (local_err) { goto out; } - addr =pc_dimm_get_free_addr (hpms->base, -memory_region_size (&hpms->mr), - !addr ?NULL : &addr, align, -memory_region_size (mr), &local_err); + addr =object_property_get_uint (OBJECT (dimm), +PC_DIMM_ADDR_PROP , &local_err);if (local_err) { goto out; } - existing_dimms_capacity =pc_existing_dimms_capacity (&local_err); + addr =memory_device_get_free_addr (!addr ?NULL : &addr, align, +memory_region_size (mr), &local_err);if (local_err) { goto out; } -if (existing_dimms_capacity +memory_region_size (mr) > - machine->maxram_size - machine->ram_size) { -error_setg (&local_err,"not enough space, currently 0x%" PRIx64 -" in use of total hot pluggable 0x" RAM_ADDR_FMT , - existing_dimms_capacity, - machine->maxram_size - machine->ram_size); - goto out; - } -object_property_set_uint (OBJECT (dev), addr,PC_DIMM_ADDR_PROP , &local_err);if (local_err) { goto out;@@ -98,67 +78,27 @@ void pc_dimm_memory_plug(DeviceState *dev, MemoryHotplugState *hpms, }trace_mhp_pc_dimm_assigned_slot (slot); -if (kvm_enabled () && !kvm_has_free_slot (machine)) { -error_setg (&local_err,"hypervisor has no free memory slots left" ); - goto out; - } - -if (!vhost_has_free_slot ()) { -error_setg (&local_err,"a used vhost backend has no free" -" memory slots left" ); +memory_device_plug_region (mr, addr, &local_err); +if (local_err) { goto out; } - -memory_region_add_subregion (&hpms->mr, addr - hpms->base, mr);vmstate_register_ram (vmstate_mr, dev); out:error_propagate (errp, local_err); } -void pc_dimm_memory_unplug (DeviceState *dev,MemoryHotplugState *hpms, -MemoryRegion *mr) +void pc_dimm_memory_unplug (DeviceState *dev) {PCDIMMDevice *dimm =PC_DIMM (dev);PCDIMMDeviceClass *ddc =PC_DIMM_GET_CLASS (dimm);MemoryRegion *vmstate_mr = ddc->get_vmstate_memory_region (dimm); +MemoryRegion *mr = ddc->get_memory_region (dimm, &error_abort); -memory_region_del_subregion (&hpms->mr, mr); +memory_device_unplug_region (mr);vmstate_unregister_ram (vmstate_mr, dev); } -static int pc_existing_dimms_capacity_internal (Object *obj,void *opaque) -{ -pc_dimms_capacity *cap = opaque; -uint64_t *size = &cap->size; - -if (object_dynamic_cast (obj,TYPE_PC_DIMM )) { -DeviceState *dev =DEVICE (obj); - -if (dev->realized) { - (*size) +=object_property_get_uint (obj,PC_DIMM_SIZE_PROP , - cap->errp); - } - -if (cap->errp && *cap->errp) { -return 1 ; - } - } -object_child_foreach (obj, pc_existing_dimms_capacity_internal, opaque); -return 0 ; -} - -uint64_t pc_existing_dimms_capacity (Error **errp) -{ -pc_dimms_capacity cap; - - cap.size =0 ; - cap.errp = errp; - -pc_existing_dimms_capacity_internal (qdev_get_machine (), &cap); -return cap.size; -} -static int pc_dimm_slot2bitmap (Object *obj,void *opaque) {unsigned long *bitmap = opaque;@@ -205,107 +145,6 @@ out:return slot; } -static gint pc_dimm_addr_sort (gconstpointer a,gconstpointer b) -{ -PCDIMMDevice *x =PC_DIMM (a); -PCDIMMDevice *y =PC_DIMM (b); -Int128 diff =int128_sub (int128_make64 (x->addr),int128_make64 (y->addr)); - -if (int128_lt (diff,int128_zero ())) { -return -1 ; - }else if (int128_gt (diff,int128_zero ())) { -return 1 ; - } -return 0 ; -} - -static int pc_dimm_built_list (Object *obj,void *opaque) -{ -GSList **list = opaque; - -if (object_dynamic_cast (obj,TYPE_PC_DIMM )) { -DeviceState *dev =DEVICE (obj); -if (dev->realized) {/* only realized DIMMs matter */ - *list =g_slist_insert_sorted (*list, dev, pc_dimm_addr_sort); - } - } - -object_child_foreach (obj, pc_dimm_built_list, opaque); -return 0 ; -} - -uint64_t pc_dimm_get_free_addr (uint64_t address_space_start, -uint64_t address_space_size, -uint64_t *hint,uint64_t align,uint64_t size, -Error **errp) -{ -GSList *list =NULL , *item; -uint64_t new_addr, ret =0 ; -uint64_t address_space_end = address_space_start + address_space_size; - -g_assert (QEMU_ALIGN_UP (address_space_start, align) == address_space_start); - -if (!address_space_size) { -error_setg (errp,"memory hotplug is not enabled, " -"please add maxmem option" ); - goto out; - } - -if (hint &&QEMU_ALIGN_UP (*hint, align) != *hint) { -error_setg (errp,"address must be aligned to 0x%" PRIx64" bytes" , - align); - goto out; - } - -if (QEMU_ALIGN_UP (size, align) != size) { -error_setg (errp,"backend memory size must be multiple of 0x%" - PRIx64, align); - goto out; - } - -assert (address_space_end > address_space_start); -object_child_foreach (qdev_get_machine (), pc_dimm_built_list, &list); - -if (hint) { - new_addr = *hint; - }else { - new_addr = address_space_start; - } - -/* find address range that will fit new DIMM */ -for (item = list; item; item =g_slist_next (item)) { -PCDIMMDevice *dimm = item->data; -uint64_t dimm_size =object_property_get_uint (OBJECT (dimm), -PC_DIMM_SIZE_PROP , - errp); -if (errp && *errp) { - goto out; - } - -if (ranges_overlap (dimm->addr, dimm_size, new_addr, size)) { -if (hint) { -DeviceState *d =DEVICE (dimm); -error_setg (errp,"address range conflicts with '%s'" , d->id); - goto out; - } - new_addr =QEMU_ALIGN_UP (dimm->addr + dimm_size, align); - } - } - ret = new_addr; - -if (new_addr < address_space_start) { -error_setg (errp,"can't add memory [0x%" PRIx64":0x%" PRIx64 -"] at 0x%" PRIx64, new_addr, size, address_space_start); - }else if ((new_addr + size) > address_space_end) { -error_setg (errp,"can't add memory [0x%" PRIx64":0x%" PRIx64 -"] beyond 0x%" PRIx64, new_addr, size, address_space_end); - } - -out: -g_slist_free (list); -return ret; -} -static Property pc_dimm_properties[] = {DEFINE_PROP_UINT64 (PC_DIMM_ADDR_PROP , PCDIMMDevice, addr,0 ),DEFINE_PROP_UINT32 (PC_DIMM_NODE_PROP , PCDIMMDevice, node,0 ),hw/ppc/spapr.c +3
-6@@ -3041,7 +3041,7 @@ static void spapr_memory_plug(HotplugHandler *hotplug_dev, DeviceState *dev, align =memory_region_get_alignment (mr); size =memory_region_size (mr); -pc_dimm_memory_plug (dev, &ms->hotplug_memory, mr, align, &local_err); +pc_dimm_memory_plug (dev, align, &local_err);if (local_err) { goto out; }@@ -3062,7 +3062,7 @@ static void spapr_memory_plug(HotplugHandler *hotplug_dev, DeviceState *dev,return ; out_unplug: -pc_dimm_memory_unplug (dev, &ms->hotplug_memory, mr); +pc_dimm_memory_unplug (dev); out:error_propagate (errp, local_err); }@@ -3180,9 +3180,6 @@ static sPAPRDIMMState *spapr_recover_pending_dimm_state(sPAPRMachineState *ms,void spapr_lmb_release (DeviceState *dev) {sPAPRMachineState *spapr =SPAPR_MACHINE (qdev_get_hotplug_handler (dev)); -PCDIMMDevice *dimm =PC_DIMM (dev); -PCDIMMDeviceClass *ddc =PC_DIMM_GET_CLASS (dimm); -MemoryRegion *mr = ddc->get_memory_region (dimm, &error_abort);sPAPRDIMMState *ds =spapr_pending_dimm_unplugs_find (spapr,PC_DIMM (dev));/* This information will get lost if a migration occurs @@ -3202,7 +3199,7 @@ void spapr_lmb_release(DeviceState *dev)* Now that all the LMBs have been removed by the guest, call the * pc-dimm unplug handler to cleanup up the pc-dimm device. */ -pc_dimm_memory_unplug (dev, &spapr->hotplug_memory, mr); +pc_dimm_memory_unplug (dev);object_unparent (OBJECT (dev));spapr_pending_dimm_unplugs_remove (spapr, ds); }include/hw/mem/memory-device.h +4
-0@@ -40,5 +40,9 @@ typedef struct MemoryDeviceClass {MemoryDeviceInfoList *qmp_memory_device_list (void );uint64_t get_plugged_memory_size (void ); +uint64_t memory_device_get_free_addr (uint64_t *hint,uint64_t align, +uint64_t size,Error **errp); +void memory_device_plug_region (MemoryRegion *mr,uint64_t addr,Error **errp); +void memory_device_unplug_region (MemoryRegion *mr);#endif include/hw/mem/pc-dimm.h +2
-12@@ -19,7 +19,6 @@#include "exec/memory.h" #include "sysemu/hostmem.h" #include "hw/qdev.h" -#include "hw/boards.h" #define TYPE_PC_DIMM "pc-dimm"#define PC_DIMM (obj) \@@ -76,16 +75,7 @@ typedef struct PCDIMMDeviceClass { MemoryRegion *(*get_vmstate_memory_region)(PCDIMMDevice *dimm); } PCDIMMDeviceClass; -uint64_t pc_dimm_get_free_addr (uint64_t address_space_start, -uint64_t address_space_size, -uint64_t *hint,uint64_t align,uint64_t size, -Error **errp); -int pc_dimm_get_free_slot (const int *hint,int max_slots,Error **errp); - -uint64_t pc_existing_dimms_capacity (Error **errp); -void pc_dimm_memory_plug (DeviceState *dev,MemoryHotplugState *hpms, -MemoryRegion *mr,uint64_t align,Error **errp); -void pc_dimm_memory_unplug (DeviceState *dev,MemoryHotplugState *hpms, -MemoryRegion *mr); +void pc_dimm_memory_plug (DeviceState *dev,uint64_t align,Error **errp); +void pc_dimm_memory_unplug (DeviceState *dev);#endif
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 3/3] pc-dimm: factor out address space logic into MemoryDevice code
Quoted 10 lines · Igor Mammedov
Quoted 5 lines · On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 14:34:56 +0200 David Hildenbrand <[email protected]> wrote:
To be able to reuse MemoryDevice logic from other devices besides pc-dimm, factor the relevant stuff out into the MemoryDevice code.
As we don't care about slots for memory devices that are not pc-dimm, don't factor that part out.
that's not really true, you still consume kvm and vhost slots (whatever it is) whenever you map it into address space as ram memory region.
Let me rephrase ACPI slots are not of interest. That user visible part is not needed for other memory devices.
KVM and VHOST slots are different (just memory regions, we don't care about which specific slot is taken)
Quoted 3 lines
Also
ram_slotscurrently are (ab)used as flag that user enabled memory hotplug via CLI.
Yes, have a patch for this :)
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Most of this patch just moves checks and logic around. While at it, make the code properly detect certain error conditions better (e.g. fragmented memory).
I'd suggest splitting patch in several smaller ones if possible, especially parts that do anything more than just moving code around.
I tried to do it in smaller steps but most of it turned out to just introduce and delete temporary code. Will have a look if this can be done after we got a common understanding of what the end result should look like.
Quoted 20 lines
Quoted 20 lines
Signed-off-by David Hildenbrand <[email protected]>--- hw/i386/pc.c | 12 +-- hw/mem/memory-device.c | 162 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ hw/mem/pc-dimm.c | 185 +++-------------------------------------- hw/ppc/spapr.c | 9 +- include/hw/mem/memory-device.h | 4 + include/hw/mem/pc-dimm.h | 14 +--- 6 files changed, 185 insertions(+), 201 deletions(-)hw/i386/pc.c +0
-0@@ -1711,7 +1711,7 @@ static void pc_dimm_plug(HotplugHandler *hotplug_dev, goto out; }
Quoted 4 lines
hw/i386/pc.c static void pc_dimm_plug(HotplugHandler *hotplug_dev, · line 1714
Quoted 2 lines
hw/i386/pc.c +1
-1-pc_dimm_memory_plug (dev, &pcms->hotplug_memory, mr, align, &local_err); +pc_dimm_memory_plug (dev, align, &local_err);Is there a reason why you are dropping
pcms->hotplug_memoryargument and fall back toqdev_get_machine()?
Yes, because we
a) access machine either way internally (a couple of times even).
b) this only works if we have a hotplug handler on the machine (esp: not for virtio devices). Otherwise we have to get the machine from the virtio realize function - also ugly.
Quoted 4 lines
I'd rather see it going other direction,
i.e. movehotplug_memoryfrom PC
machine to MachineState and then pass it down as argument whenever it's needed.
As said, ugly for virtio devices. And I don't see a benefit if we access the machine internally already either way.
Quoted 22 lines
Quoted 22 lines
hw/i386/pc.c +0
-8if (local_err) { goto out; }@@ -1761,17 +1761,9 @@ static void pc_dimm_unplug(HotplugHandler *hotplug_dev, DeviceState *dev, Error **errp) {PCMachineState *pcms =PC_MACHINE (hotplug_dev); -PCDIMMDevice *dimm =PC_DIMM (dev); -PCDIMMDeviceClass *ddc =PC_DIMM_GET_CLASS (dimm); -MemoryRegion *mr;HotplugHandlerClass *hhc;Error *local_err =NULL ; - mr = ddc->get_memory_region (dimm, &local_err); -if (local_err) { - goto out; - } - hhc =HOTPLUG_HANDLER_GET_CLASS (pcms->acpi_dev); hhc->unplug (HOTPLUG_HANDLER (pcms->acpi_dev), dev, &local_err);
Quoted 7 lines
hw/i386/pc.c static void pc_dimm_unplug(HotplugHandler *hotplug_dev, · line 1774
Quoted 6 lines
hw/i386/pc.c +1
-1@@ -1779,7 +1771,7 @@ static void pc_dimm_unplug(HotplugHandler *hotplug_dev, goto out; } -pc_dimm_memory_unplug (dev, &pcms->hotplug_memory, mr); +pc_dimm_memory_unplug (dev);ditto
(and I still think it looks cleaner, but we can discuss)
Quoted 46 lines
Quoted 46 lines
hw/i386/pc.c +0
-0object_unparent (OBJECT (dev)); out:hw/mem/memory-device.c +27
-0@@ -15,6 +15,8 @@#include "qapi/error.h" #include "hw/boards.h" #include "qemu/range.h" +#include "hw/virtio/vhost.h" +#include "sysemu/kvm.h" static gint memory_device_addr_sort (gconstpointer a,gconstpointer b) {@@ -106,6 +108,166 @@ uint64_t get_plugged_memory_size(void)return size; } +static int memory_device_used_region_size_internal (Object *obj,void *opaque) +{ +uint64_t *size = opaque; + +if (object_dynamic_cast (obj,TYPE_MEMORY_DEVICE )) { +DeviceState *dev =DEVICE (obj); +MemoryDeviceState *md =MEMORY_DEVICE (obj); +MemoryDeviceClass *mdc =MEMORY_DEVICE_GET_CLASS (obj); + +if (dev->realized) { + *size += mdc->get_region_size (md, &error_abort); + } + } + +object_child_foreach (obj, memory_device_used_region_size_internal, opaque); +return 0 ; +} + +static uint64_t memory_device_used_region_size (void ) +{ +uint64_t size =0 ; + +memory_device_used_region_size_internal (qdev_get_machine (), &size); + +return size;
Quoted 9 lines
hw/mem/memory-device.c uint64_t get_plugged_memory_size(void) · line 139
Quoted 4 lines
hw/mem/memory-device.c +4
-0+} + +uint64_t memory_device_get_free_addr (uint64_t *hint,uint64_t align, +uint64_t size,Error **errp)I'd suggest to pc_dimm_memory_plug/pc_dimm_get_free_addr first, namely most of the stuff it does like checks and assigning default values should go to
pre_plug(pre realize) handler and then only actual mapping is left for plug (after realize) handler to deal with:
Can you elaborate what you mean by pre-plug? If this is about pre plug handler of the (machine) hotplug handler, it might be problematic for virtio devices.
Quoted 18 lines
memory_region_add_subregion(&hpms->mr, addr - hpms->base, mr); vmstate_register_ram(vmstate_mr, dev);Quoted 15 lines
hw/mem/memory-device.c +15
-0+{ +const uint64_t used_region_size =memory_device_used_region_size (); +uint64_t address_space_start, address_space_end; +MachineState *machine =MACHINE (qdev_get_machine ()); +MachineClass *mc =MACHINE_GET_CLASS (machine); +MemoryHotplugState *hpms; +GSList *list =NULL , *item; +uint64_t new_addr =0 ; + +if (!mc->get_memory_hotplug_state) { +error_setg (errp,"memory devices (e.g. for memory hotplug) are not " +"supported by the machine" ); +return 0 ; + } +
Quoted 8 lines
hw/mem/memory-device.c uint64_t get_plugged_memory_size(void) · line 160
Quoted 6 lines
hw/mem/memory-device.c +6
-0+ hpms = mc->get_memory_hotplug_state (machine); +if (!hpms || !memory_region_size (&hpms->mr)) { +error_setg (errp,"memory devices (e.g. for memory hotplug) are not " +"enabled, please specify the maxmem option" ); +return 0 ; + }above 2 checks are repeated multiple times separate helper to do it would be better.
In the current code there is only one place left (namely) here.
Quoted 4 lines
PS:
there is no need to check for it every time device is plugged, doing this check once (atmachine_inittime) is sufficient.
Can you elaborate? There has to be one central place where we check if we can hotplug a memory device. E.g. virtio devices don't go via the machine hotplug handler.
Quoted 86 lines
Quoted 75 lines
hw/mem/memory-device.c +74
-0+ address_space_start = hpms->base; + address_space_end = address_space_start +memory_region_size (&hpms->mr); +g_assert (address_space_end >= address_space_start); + +if (used_region_size + size > machine->maxram_size - machine->ram_size) { +error_setg (errp,"not enough space, currently 0x%" PRIx64 +" in use of total hot pluggable 0x" RAM_ADDR_FMT , + used_region_size, machine->maxram_size - machine->ram_size); +return 0 ; + } + +if (hint &&QEMU_ALIGN_UP (*hint, align) != *hint) { +error_setg (errp,"address must be aligned to 0x%" PRIx64" bytes" , + align); +return 0 ; + } + +if (QEMU_ALIGN_UP (size, align) != size) { +error_setg (errp,"backend memory size must be multiple of 0x%" + PRIx64, align); +return 0 ; + } + +if (hint) { + new_addr = *hint; +if (new_addr < address_space_start) { +error_setg (errp,"can't add memory [0x%" PRIx64":0x%" PRIx64 +"] at 0x%" PRIx64, new_addr, size, address_space_start); +return 0 ; + }else if ((new_addr + size) > address_space_end) { +error_setg (errp,"can't add memory [0x%" PRIx64":0x%" PRIx64 +"] beyond 0x%" PRIx64, new_addr, size, + address_space_end); +return 0 ; + } + }else { + new_addr = address_space_start; + } + +/* find address range that will fit new memory device */ +object_child_foreach (qdev_get_machine (), memory_device_built_list, &list); +for (item = list; item; item =g_slist_next (item)) { +MemoryDeviceState *md = item->data; +MemoryDeviceClass *mdc =MEMORY_DEVICE_GET_CLASS (OBJECT (md)); +uint64_t md_size, md_addr; + + md_addr = mdc->get_addr (md); + md_size = mdc->get_region_size (md, errp); +if (*errp) { + goto out; + } + +if (ranges_overlap (md_addr, md_size, new_addr, size)) { +if (hint) { +DeviceState *d =DEVICE (md); +error_setg (errp,"address range conflicts with '%s'" , d->id); + goto out; + } + new_addr =QEMU_ALIGN_UP (md_addr + md_size, align); + } + } + +if (new_addr + size > address_space_end) { +error_setg (errp,"could not find position in guest address space for " +"memory device - memory fragmented due to alignments" ); + goto out; + } +out: +g_slist_free (list); +return new_addr; +} + +void memory_device_plug_region (MemoryRegion *mr,uint64_t addr,Error **errp) +{[...]
hw/mem/memory-device.c uint64_t get_plugged_memory_size(void) · line 252
Quoted 9 lines
hw/mem/memory-device.c +9
-0+/* we will need a new memory slot for kvm and vhost */ +if (kvm_enabled () && !kvm_has_free_slot (machine)) { +error_setg (errp,"hypervisor has no free memory slots left" ); +return ; + } +if (!vhost_has_free_slot ()) { +error_setg (errp,"a used vhost backend has no free memory slots left" ); +return ; + }
Quoted 1 line
move these checks to
pre_plugtime
That would then be a different flow as we have right now. But it sounds sane.
Signature · 3 lines
Thanks, David / dhildenb
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 3/3] pc-dimm: factor out address space logic into MemoryDevice code
Quoted 3 lines · On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 14:44:34 +0200 David Hildenbrand <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 2 lines · Igor Mammedov
On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 14:34:56 +0200
David Hildenbrand <[email protected]> wrote:
considering v4 queued, I'm dropping mostly nor relevant points at this point. wrt, virtio I'll elaborate more in reply to Pankaj
[...]
Quoted 52 lines
Quoted 42 lines
Quoted 42 lines
hw/mem/memory-device.c +27
-0@@ -15,6 +15,8 @@#include "qapi/error.h" #include "hw/boards.h" #include "qemu/range.h" +#include "hw/virtio/vhost.h" +#include "sysemu/kvm.h" static gint memory_device_addr_sort (gconstpointer a,gconstpointer b) {@@ -106,6 +108,166 @@ uint64_t get_plugged_memory_size(void)return size; } +static int memory_device_used_region_size_internal (Object *obj,void *opaque) +{ +uint64_t *size = opaque; + +if (object_dynamic_cast (obj,TYPE_MEMORY_DEVICE )) { +DeviceState *dev =DEVICE (obj); +MemoryDeviceState *md =MEMORY_DEVICE (obj); +MemoryDeviceClass *mdc =MEMORY_DEVICE_GET_CLASS (obj); + +if (dev->realized) { + *size += mdc->get_region_size (md, &error_abort); + } + } + +object_child_foreach (obj, memory_device_used_region_size_internal, opaque); +return 0 ; +} + +static uint64_t memory_device_used_region_size (void ) +{ +uint64_t size =0 ; + +memory_device_used_region_size_internal (qdev_get_machine (), &size); + +return size;Quoted 9 lines
hw/mem/memory-device.c uint64_t get_plugged_memory_size(void) · line 139
Quoted 4 lines
hw/mem/memory-device.c +4
-0+} + +uint64_t memory_device_get_free_addr (uint64_t *hint,uint64_t align, +uint64_t size,Error **errp)I'd suggest to pc_dimm_memory_plug/pc_dimm_get_free_addr first, namely most of the stuff it does like checks and assigning default values should go to
pre_plug(pre realize) handler and then only actual mapping is left for plug (after realize) handler to deal with:
Quoted 3 lines
Can you elaborate what you mean by pre-plug? If this is about pre plug handler of the (machine) hotplug handler, it might be problematic for virtio devices.
yes, something along these lines: c871bc70b
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 3/3] pc-dimm: factor out address space logic into MemoryDevice code
Quoted 63 lines · Igor Mammedov
Quoted 3 lines · On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 14:44:34 +0200 David Hildenbrand <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 2 lines · Igor Mammedov
On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 14:34:56 +0200
David Hildenbrand <[email protected]> wrote:considering v4 queued, I'm dropping mostly nor relevant points at this point. wrt, virtio I'll elaborate more in reply to Pankaj
[...]
Quoted 52 lines
Quoted 51 lines
Quoted 36 lines
hw/mem/memory-device.c +21
-0@@ -15,6 +15,8 @@#include "qapi/error.h" #include "hw/boards.h" #include "qemu/range.h" +#include "hw/virtio/vhost.h" +#include "sysemu/kvm.h" static gint memory_device_addr_sort (gconstpointer a,gconstpointer b) {@@ -106,6 +108,166 @@ uint64_t get_plugged_memory_size(void)return size; } +static int memory_device_used_region_size_internal (Object *obj,void *opaque) +{ +uint64_t *size = opaque; + +if (object_dynamic_cast (obj,TYPE_MEMORY_DEVICE )) { +DeviceState *dev =DEVICE (obj); +MemoryDeviceState *md =MEMORY_DEVICE (obj); +MemoryDeviceClass *mdc =MEMORY_DEVICE_GET_CLASS (obj); + +if (dev->realized) { + *size += mdc->get_region_size (md, &error_abort); + } + } + +object_child_foreach (obj, memory_device_used_region_size_internal, opaque); +return 0 ; +} + +static uint64_t memory_device_used_region_size (void )hw/mem/memory-device.c uint64_t get_plugged_memory_size(void) · line 139
Quoted 10 lines
hw/mem/memory-device.c +10
-0+{ +uint64_t size =0 ; + +memory_device_used_region_size_internal (qdev_get_machine (), &size); + +return size; +} + +uint64_t memory_device_get_free_addr (uint64_t *hint,uint64_t align, +uint64_t size,Error **errp)I'd suggest to pc_dimm_memory_plug/pc_dimm_get_free_addr first, namely most of the stuff it does like checks and assigning default values should go to
pre_plug(pre realize) handler and then only actual mapping is left for plug (after realize) handler to deal with:
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Can you elaborate what you mean by pre-plug? If this is about pre plug handler of the (machine) hotplug handler, it might be problematic for virtio devices.
yes, something along these lines:
c871bc70b
Yes, we can factor that out (at least) for pc-dimm later on easily. Seems to be just about moving a couple of calls.
Signature · 3 lines
Thanks, David / dhildenb
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 3/3] pc-dimm: factor out address space logic into MemoryDevice code
Quoted 67 lines · On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 15:39:30 +0200 David Hildenbrand <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 66 lines · Igor Mammedov
Quoted 3 lines · On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 14:44:34 +0200 David Hildenbrand <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 2 lines · Igor Mammedov
On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 14:34:56 +0200
David Hildenbrand <[email protected]> wrote:considering v4 queued, I'm dropping mostly nor relevant points at this point. wrt, virtio I'll elaborate more in reply to Pankaj
[...]
Quoted 55 lines
Quoted 42 lines
Quoted 42 lines
hw/mem/memory-device.c +27
-0@@ -15,6 +15,8 @@#include "qapi/error.h" #include "hw/boards.h" #include "qemu/range.h" +#include "hw/virtio/vhost.h" +#include "sysemu/kvm.h" static gint memory_device_addr_sort (gconstpointer a,gconstpointer b) {@@ -106,6 +108,166 @@ uint64_t get_plugged_memory_size(void)return size; } +static int memory_device_used_region_size_internal (Object *obj,void *opaque) +{ +uint64_t *size = opaque; + +if (object_dynamic_cast (obj,TYPE_MEMORY_DEVICE )) { +DeviceState *dev =DEVICE (obj); +MemoryDeviceState *md =MEMORY_DEVICE (obj); +MemoryDeviceClass *mdc =MEMORY_DEVICE_GET_CLASS (obj); + +if (dev->realized) { + *size += mdc->get_region_size (md, &error_abort); + } + } + +object_child_foreach (obj, memory_device_used_region_size_internal, opaque); +return 0 ; +} + +static uint64_t memory_device_used_region_size (void ) +{ +uint64_t size =0 ; + +memory_device_used_region_size_internal (qdev_get_machine (), &size); + +return size;Quoted 9 lines
hw/mem/memory-device.c uint64_t get_plugged_memory_size(void) · line 139
Quoted 4 lines
hw/mem/memory-device.c +4
-0+} + +uint64_t memory_device_get_free_addr (uint64_t *hint,uint64_t align, +uint64_t size,Error **errp)I'd suggest to pc_dimm_memory_plug/pc_dimm_get_free_addr first, namely most of the stuff it does like checks and assigning default values should go to
pre_plug(pre realize) handler and then only actual mapping is left for plug (after realize) handler to deal with:Can you elaborate what you mean by pre-plug? If this is about pre plug handler of the (machine) hotplug handler, it might be problematic for virtio devices.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 3 lines
yes, something along these lines:
c871bc70bYes, we can factor that out (at least) for pc-dimm later on easily. Seems to be just about moving a couple of calls.
yep, but there is nice side effect,
there is no need to call devicefoo::unrealize() on failure since devicefoo:realize() hasn't been called yet.
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 3/3] pc-dimm: factor out address space logic into MemoryDevice code
In reply to Igor MammedovQuoted 11 lines
hw/mem/memory-device.c uint64_t get_plugged_memory_size(void) · line 252
Quoted 11 lines
hw/mem/memory-device.c +9
-0+/* we will need a new memory slot for kvm and vhost */ +if (kvm_enabled () && !kvm_has_free_slot (machine)) { +error_setg (errp,"hypervisor has no free memory slots left" ); +return ; + } +if (!vhost_has_free_slot ()) { +error_setg (errp,"a used vhost backend has no free memory slots left" ); +return ; + }
Quoted 5 lines
move these checks to
pre_plugtimeReview
Quoted 2 lines
(quoted diff) +2
-0+ + memory_region_add_subregion(&hpms->mr, addr - hpms->base, mr);missing vmstate registration?
Missed this one: To be called by the caller. Important because e.g. for virtio-pmem we don't want this (I assume :) ).
Thanks!
Signature · 3 lines
Thanks, David / dhildenb
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 3/3] pc-dimm: factor out address space logic into MemoryDevice code
Quoted 10 lines · On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 14:52:37 +0200 David Hildenbrand <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 10 lines
hw/mem/memory-device.c +9
-0+/* we will need a new memory slot for kvm and vhost */ +if (kvm_enabled () && !kvm_has_free_slot (machine)) { +error_setg (errp,"hypervisor has no free memory slots left" ); +return ; + } +if (!vhost_has_free_slot ()) { +error_setg (errp,"a used vhost backend has no free memory slots left" ); +return ; + }
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 5 lines
move these checks to
pre_plugtimeReview
Quoted 2 lines
(quoted diff) +2
-0+ + memory_region_add_subregion(&hpms->mr, addr - hpms->base, mr);missing vmstate registration?
Missed this one: To be called by the caller. Important because e.g. for virtio-pmem we don't want this (I assume :) ).
if pmem isn't on shared storage, then We'd probably want to migrate it as well, otherwise target would experience data loss. Anyways, I'd just reat it as normal RAM in migration case
Quoted 4 lines
Thanks!
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 3/3] pc-dimm: factor out address space logic into MemoryDevice code
Quoted 17 lines · Igor Mammedov
Quoted 14 lines · On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 14:52:37 +0200 David Hildenbrand <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 14 lines
hw/mem/memory-device.c uint64_t get_plugged_memory_size(void) · line 252
Quoted 10 lines
hw/mem/memory-device.c +9
-0+/* we will need a new memory slot for kvm and vhost */ +if (kvm_enabled () && !kvm_has_free_slot (machine)) { +error_setg (errp,"hypervisor has no free memory slots left" ); +return ; + } +if (!vhost_has_free_slot ()) { +error_setg (errp,"a used vhost backend has no free memory slots left" ); +return ; + }move these checks to
pre_plugtimeQuoted 2 lines
(quoted diff) +2
-0+ + memory_region_add_subregion(&hpms->mr, addr - hpms->base, mr);
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 1 line
missing vmstate registration?
Missed this one: To be called by the caller. Important because e.g. for virtio-pmem we don't want this (I assume :) ).
if pmem isn't on shared storage, then We'd probably want to migrate it as well, otherwise target would experience data loss. Anyways, I'd just reat it as normal RAM in migration case
Yes, if we realize that all MemoryDevices need this call, we can move it to that place, too.
Wonder if we might want to make this configurable for virtio-pmem later on (via a flag or sth like that).
Signature · 3 lines
Thanks, David / dhildenb
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 3/3] pc-dimm: factor out address space logic into MemoryDevice code
Quoted 26 lines · On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 15:41:23 +0200 David Hildenbrand <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 17 lines · Igor Mammedov
Quoted 14 lines · On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 14:52:37 +0200 David Hildenbrand <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 14 lines
hw/mem/memory-device.c uint64_t get_plugged_memory_size(void) · line 252
Quoted 10 lines
hw/mem/memory-device.c +9
-0+/* we will need a new memory slot for kvm and vhost */ +if (kvm_enabled () && !kvm_has_free_slot (machine)) { +error_setg (errp,"hypervisor has no free memory slots left" ); +return ; + } +if (!vhost_has_free_slot ()) { +error_setg (errp,"a used vhost backend has no free memory slots left" ); +return ; + }move these checks to
pre_plugtimeQuoted 2 lines
(quoted diff) +2
-0+ + memory_region_add_subregion(&hpms->mr, addr - hpms->base, mr);Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 1 line
missing vmstate registration?
Missed this one: To be called by the caller. Important because e.g. for virtio-pmem we don't want this (I assume :) ).
if pmem isn't on shared storage, then We'd probably want to migrate it as well, otherwise target would experience data loss. Anyways, I'd just reat it as normal RAM in migration case
Quoted 5 lines
Yes, if we realize that all MemoryDevices need this call, we can move it to that place, too.
Wonder if we might want to make this configurable for virtio-pmem later on (via a flag or sth like that).
I don't see any reason why we wouldn't like it to be migrated, it's the same as nvdimm but with another qemu:guest ABI and async flush instead of sync one we have with nvdimm.
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 3/3] pc-dimm: factor out address space logic into MemoryDevice code
Quoted 29 lines · Igor Mammedov
Quoted 26 lines · On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 15:41:23 +0200 David Hildenbrand <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 24 lines · Igor Mammedov
Quoted 10 lines · On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 14:52:37 +0200 David Hildenbrand <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 10 lines
hw/mem/memory-device.c +9
-0+/* we will need a new memory slot for kvm and vhost */ +if (kvm_enabled () && !kvm_has_free_slot (machine)) { +error_setg (errp,"hypervisor has no free memory slots left" ); +return ; + } +if (!vhost_has_free_slot ()) { +error_setg (errp,"a used vhost backend has no free memory slots left" ); +return ; + }Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 5 lines
move these checks to
pre_plugtimeReview
Quoted 2 lines
(quoted diff) +2
-0+ + memory_region_add_subregion(&hpms->mr, addr - hpms->base, mr);missing vmstate registration?
Missed this one: To be called by the caller. Important because e.g. for virtio-pmem we don't want this (I assume :) ).
if pmem isn't on shared storage, then We'd probably want to migrate it as well, otherwise target would experience data loss. Anyways, I'd just reat it as normal RAM in migration case
Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Yes, if we realize that all MemoryDevices need this call, we can move it to that place, too.
Wonder if we might want to make this configurable for virtio-pmem later on (via a flag or sth like that).
I don't see any reason why we wouldn't like it to be migrated, it's the same as nvdimm but with another qemu:guest ABI and async flush instead of sync one we have with nvdimm.
Didn't you just mention "shared storage" ? :)
Anyhow, I leave such stuff to Pankaj to figure out. I remember him working on some page cache details. Once clarified, this is easily refactored later on.
Signature · 3 lines
Thanks, David / dhildenb
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 3/3] pc-dimm: factor out address space logic into MemoryDevice code
In reply to Igor MammedovQuoted 17 lines
Quoted 17 lines
Quoted 17 lines
Review
Quoted 13 lines
hw/mem/memory-device.c +7
-0+/* we will need a new memory slot for kvm and vhost */ +if (kvm_enabled () && !kvm_has_free_slot (machine)) { +error_setg (errp,"hypervisor has no free memory slots left" ); +return ; + } +if (!vhost_has_free_slot ()) { + error_setg(errp, "a used vhost backend has no free memory slotsleft");
(quoted diff) +2
-0+ return; + }move these checks to
pre_plugtimeQuoted 2 lines
(quoted diff) +2
-0+ + memory_region_add_subregion(&hpms->mr, addr - hpms->base, mr);
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 1 line
missing vmstate registration?
Missed this one: To be called by the caller. Important because e.g. for virtio-pmem we don't want this (I assume :) ).
if pmem isn't on shared storage, then We'd probably want to migrate it as well, otherwise target would experience data loss. Anyways, I'd just reat it as normal RAM in migration case
Main difference between RAM and pmem it acts like combination of RAM and disk. Saying this, in normal use-case size would be 100 GB's - few TB's range. I am not sure we really want to migrate it for non-shared storage use-case.
One reason why nvdimm added vmstate info could be: still there would be transient writes in memory with fake DAX and there is no way(till now) to flush the guest writes. But with virtio-pmem we can flush such writes before migration and automatically at destination host with shared disk we will have updated data.
Thanks,
Pankaj
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 3/3] pc-dimm: factor out address space logic into MemoryDevice code
Quoted 20 lines · On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 01:45:12 -0400 (EDT) Pankaj Gupta <[email protected]>…
Quoted 20 lines
Quoted 20 lines
Quoted 12 lines
Review
Quoted 12 lines
hw/mem/memory-device.c +7
-0+/* we will need a new memory slot for kvm and vhost */ +if (kvm_enabled () && !kvm_has_free_slot (machine)) { +error_setg (errp,"hypervisor has no free memory slots left" ); +return ; + } +if (!vhost_has_free_slot ()) { + error_setg(errp, "a used vhost backend has no free memory slotsleft");
(quoted diff) +2
-0+ return; + }Quoted 5 lines
move these checks to
pre_plugtimeReview
Quoted 2 lines
(quoted diff) +2
-0+ + memory_region_add_subregion(&hpms->mr, addr - hpms->base, mr);missing vmstate registration?
Missed this one: To be called by the caller. Important because e.g. for virtio-pmem we don't want this (I assume :) ).
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 3 lines
if pmem isn't on shared storage, then We'd probably want to migrate it as well, otherwise target would experience data loss. Anyways, I'd just reat it as normal RAM in migration case
Main difference between RAM and pmem it acts like combination of RAM and disk. Saying this, in normal use-case size would be 100 GB's - few TB's range. I am not sure we really want to migrate it for non-shared storage use-case.
with non shared storage you'd have to migrate it target host but with shared storage it might be possible to flush it and use directly from target host. That probably won't work right out of box and would need some sort of synchronization between src/dst hosts.
The same applies to nv/pc-dimm as well, as backend file easily could be on pmem storage as well.
Maybe for now we should migrate everything so it would work in case of non shared NVDIMM on host. And then later add migration-less capability to all of them.
Quoted 4 lines
One reason why nvdimm added vmstate info could be: still there would be transient writes in memory with fake DAX and there is no way(till now) to flush the guest writes. But with virtio-pmem we can flush such writes before migration and automatically at destination host with shared disk we will have updated data.
nvdimm has concept of flush address hint (may be not implemented in qemu yet) but it can flush. The only reason I'm buying into virtio-mem idea is that would allow async flush queues which would reduce number of vmexits.
Quoted 6 lines
Thanks,
Pankaj
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 3/3] pc-dimm: factor out address space logic into MemoryDevice code
Quoted 12 lines
Quoted 12 lines
Quoted 11 lines
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Review
Quoted 4 lines
(quoted diff) +2
-0+ + memory_region_add_subregion(&hpms->mr, addr - hpms->base, mr);missing vmstate registration?
Missed this one: To be called by the caller. Important because e.g. for virtio-pmem we don't want this (I assume :) ).
if pmem isn't on shared storage, then We'd probably want to migrate it as well, otherwise target would experience data loss. Anyways, I'd just reat it as normal RAM in migration case
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Main difference between RAM and pmem it acts like combination of RAM and disk.
Saying this, in normal use-case size would be 100 GB's - few TB's range. I am not sure we really want to migrate it for non-shared storage use-case.with non shared storage you'd have to migrate it target host but with shared storage it might be possible to flush it and use directly from target host. That probably won't work right out of box and would need some sort of synchronization between src/dst hosts.
Shared storage should work out of the box. Only thing is data in destination host will be cache cold and existing pages in cache should be invalidated first. But if we migrate entire fake DAX RAMstate it will populate destination host page cache including pages while were idle in source host. This would unnecessarily create entropy in destination host.
To me this feature don't make much sense. Problem which we are solving is:
Efficiently use guest RAM.
Quoted 3 lines
The same applies to nv/pc-dimm as well, as backend file easily could be on pmem storage as well.
Are you saying backing file is in actual actual nvdimm hardware? we don't need emulation at all.
Quoted 4 lines
Maybe for now we should migrate everything so it would work in case of non shared NVDIMM on host. And then later add migration-less capability to all of them.
not sure I agree.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 8 lines
One reason why nvdimm added vmstate info could be: still there would be transient
writes in memory with fake DAX and there is no way(till now) to flush the guest
writes. But with virtio-pmem we can flush such writes before migration and automatically
at destination host with shared disk we will have updated data.
Quoted 4 lines
nvdimm has concept of flush address hint (may be not implemented in qemu yet) but it can flush. The only reason I'm buying into virtio-mem idea is that would allow async flush queues which would reduce number of vmexits.
Thats correct.
Thanks,
Pankaj
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 3/3] pc-dimm: factor out address space logic into MemoryDevice code
Quoted 27 lines · On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 09:56:49 -0400 (EDT) Pankaj Gupta <[email protected]>…
Quoted 11 lines
Quoted 11 lines
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Review
Quoted 3 lines
(quoted diff) +2
-0+ + memory_region_add_subregion(&hpms->mr, addr - hpms->base, mr);missing vmstate registration?
Missed this one: To be called by the caller. Important because e.g. for virtio-pmem we don't want this (I assume :) ).
if pmem isn't on shared storage, then We'd probably want to migrate it as well, otherwise target would experience data loss. Anyways, I'd just reat it as normal RAM in migration case
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Main difference between RAM and pmem it acts like combination of RAM and disk.
Saying this, in normal use-case size would be 100 GB's - few TB's range. I am not sure we really want to migrate it for non-shared storage use-case.with non shared storage you'd have to migrate it target host but with shared storage it might be possible to flush it and use directly from target host. That probably won't work right out of box and would need some sort of synchronization between src/dst hosts.
Shared storage should work out of the box.
Only thing is data in destination
host will be cache cold and existing pages in cache should be invalidated first. But if we migrate entire fake DAX RAMstate it will populate destination host page cache including pages while were idle in source host. This would unnecessarily create entropy in destination host.
Quoted 2 lines
To me this feature don't make much sense. Problem which we are solving is:
Efficiently use guest RAM.
What would live migration handover flow look like in case of guest constantly dirting memory provided by virtio-pmem and and sometimes issuing async flush req along with it?
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines
The same applies to nv/pc-dimm as well, as backend file easily could be on pmem storage as well.
Are you saying backing file is in actual actual nvdimm hardware? we don't need emulation at all.
depends on if file is on DAX filesystem, but your argument about migrating huge 100Gb- TB's range applies in this case as well.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Maybe for now we should migrate everything so it would work in case of non shared NVDIMM on host. And then later add migration-less capability to all of them.
not sure I agree.
So would you inhibit migration in case of non shared backend storage, to avoid loosing data since they aren't migrated?
Quoted 18 lines
Quoted 11 lines
Quoted 7 lines
One reason why nvdimm added vmstate info could be: still there would be transient
writes in memory with fake DAX and there is no way(till now) to flush the guest
writes. But with virtio-pmem we can flush such writes before migration and automatically
at destination host with shared disk we will have updated data.nvdimm has concept of flush address hint (may be not implemented in qemu yet) but it can flush. The only reason I'm buying into virtio-mem idea is that would allow async flush queues which would reduce number of vmexits.
Thats correct.
Thanks,
Pankaj
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 3/3] pc-dimm: factor out address space logic into MemoryDevice code
Quoted 35 lines
Quoted 35 lines
Quoted 20 lines
Quoted 13 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 4 lines
(quoted diff) +2
-0+ + memory_region_add_subregion(&hpms->mr, addr - hpms->base,mr);
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 1 line
missing vmstate registration?
Missed this one: To be called by the caller. Important because e.g. for
virtio-pmem we don't want this (I assume :) ).if pmem isn't on shared storage, then We'd probably want to migrate it as well, otherwise target would experience data loss. Anyways, I'd just reat it as normal RAM in migration case
Quoted 7 lines
Main difference between RAM and pmem it acts like combination of RAM and
disk.
Saying this, in normal use-case size would be 100 GB's - few TB's range.
I am not sure we really want to migrate it for non-shared storage use-case.Quoted 4 lines
with non shared storage you'd have to migrate it target host but with shared storage it might be possible to flush it and use directly from target host. That probably won't work right out of box and would need some sort of synchronization between src/dst hosts.
Shared storage should work out of the box.
Only thing is data in destination
host will be cache cold and existing pages in cache should be invalidated first.
But if we migrate entire fake DAX RAMstate it will populate destination host page
cache including pages while were idle in source host. This would unnecessarily
create entropy in destination host.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines
To me this feature don't make much sense. Problem which we are solving is:
Efficiently use guest RAM.What would live migration handover flow look like in case of guest constantly dirting memory provided by virtio-pmem and and sometimes issuing async flush req along with it?
Dirty entire pmem (disk) at once not a usual scenario. Some part of disk/pmem would get dirty and we need to handle that. I just want to say moving entire pmem (disk) is not efficient solution because we are using this solution to manage guest memory efficiently. Otherwise it will be like any block device copy with non-shared storage.
Quoted 13 lines
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 4 lines
The same applies to nv/pc-dimm as well, as backend file easily could be on pmem storage as well.
Are you saying backing file is in actual actual nvdimm hardware? we don't need
emulation at all.depends on if file is on DAX filesystem, but your argument about migrating huge 100Gb- TB's range applies in this case as well.
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Maybe for now we should migrate everything so it would work in case of non shared NVDIMM on host. And then later add migration-less capability to all of them.
not sure I agree.
So would you inhibit migration in case of non shared backend storage, to avoid loosing data since they aren't migrated?
I am just thinking what features we want to support with pmem. And live migration with shared storage is the one which comes to my mind.
If live migration with non-shared storage is what we want to support (I don't know yet) we can add this? Even with shared storage it would copy entire pmem state?
Thanks,
Pankaj
Quoted 26 lines
Quoted 23 lines
Quoted 11 lines
Quoted 11 lines
One reason why nvdimm added vmstate info could be: still there would be transient
writes in memory with fake DAX and there is no way(till now) to flush the
guest
writes. But with virtio-pmem we can flush such writes before migration and
automatically
at destination host with shared disk we will have updated data.Quoted 5 lines
nvdimm has concept of flush address hint (may be not implemented in qemu yet)
but it can flush. The only reason I'm buying into virtio-mem idea is that would allow async flush queues which would reduce number of vmexits.Thats correct.
Thanks,
Pankaj
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 3/3] virtio-pmem: should we make it migratable???
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 03:37:51 -0400 (EDT)
Pankaj Gupta <[email protected]> wrote:
trimming CC list to keep people that might be interested in the topic and renaming thread to reflect it.
Quoted 40 lines
Quoted 34 lines
Quoted 34 lines
Quoted 19 lines
Quoted 12 lines
Quoted 11 lines
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 3 lines
(quoted diff) +2
-0+ + memory_region_add_subregion(&hpms->mr, addr - hpms->base,mr);
missing vmstate registration?
Missed this one: To be called by the caller. Important because e.g. for
virtio-pmem we don't want this (I assume :) ).if pmem isn't on shared storage, then We'd probably want to migrate it as well, otherwise target would experience data loss. Anyways, I'd just reat it as normal RAM in migration case
Quoted 7 lines
Main difference between RAM and pmem it acts like combination of RAM and
disk.
Saying this, in normal use-case size would be 100 GB's - few TB's range.
I am not sure we really want to migrate it for non-shared storage use-case.Quoted 4 lines
with non shared storage you'd have to migrate it target host but with shared storage it might be possible to flush it and use directly from target host. That probably won't work right out of box and would need some sort of synchronization between src/dst hosts.
Shared storage should work out of the box.
Only thing is data in destination
host will be cache cold and existing pages in cache should be invalidated first.
But if we migrate entire fake DAX RAMstate it will populate destination host page
cache including pages while were idle in source host. This would unnecessarily
create entropy in destination host.Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines
To me this feature don't make much sense. Problem which we are solving is:
Efficiently use guest RAM.What would live migration handover flow look like in case of guest constantly dirting memory provided by virtio-pmem and and sometimes issuing async flush req along with it?
Quoted 5 lines
Dirty entire pmem (disk) at once not a usual scenario. Some part of disk/pmem would get dirty and we need to handle that. I just want to say moving entire pmem (disk) is not efficient solution because we are using this solution to manage guest memory efficiently. Otherwise it will be like any block device copy with non-shared storage.
not sure if we can use block layer analogy here.
Quoted 16 lines
Quoted 16 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 2 lines
The same applies to nv/pc-dimm as well, as backend file easily could be on pmem storage as well.
Are you saying backing file is in actual actual nvdimm hardware? we don't need
emulation at all.depends on if file is on DAX filesystem, but your argument about migrating huge 100Gb- TB's range applies in this case as well.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Maybe for now we should migrate everything so it would work in case of non shared NVDIMM on host. And then later add migration-less capability to all of them.
not sure I agree.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 2 lines
So would you inhibit migration in case of non shared backend storage, to avoid loosing data since they aren't migrated?
I am just thinking what features we want to support with pmem. And live migration with shared storage is the one which comes to my mind.
If live migration with non-shared storage is what we want to support (I don't know yet) we can add this? Even with shared storage it would copy entire pmem state?
Perhaps we should register vmstate like for normal ram and use something similar to
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2018-04/msg00003.html this
to skip shared memory on migration.
In this case we could use this for pc-dimms as well.
David,
what's your take on it?
Quoted 30 lines
Thanks,
PankajQuoted 26 lines
Quoted 23 lines
Quoted 11 lines
Quoted 11 lines
One reason why nvdimm added vmstate info could be: still there would be transient
writes in memory with fake DAX and there is no way(till now) to flush the
guest
writes. But with virtio-pmem we can flush such writes before migration and
automatically
at destination host with shared disk we will have updated data.Quoted 5 lines
nvdimm has concept of flush address hint (may be not implemented in qemu yet)
but it can flush. The only reason I'm buying into virtio-mem idea is that would allow async flush queues which would reduce number of vmexits.Thats correct.
Thanks,
Pankaj
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 3/3] virtio-pmem: should we make it migratable???
Quoted 77 lines · Igor Mammedov
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 03:37:51 -0400 (EDT)
Pankaj Gupta <[email protected]> wrote:trimming CC list to keep people that might be interested in the topic and renaming thread to reflect it.
Quoted 40 lines
Quoted 34 lines
Quoted 34 lines
Quoted 19 lines
Quoted 12 lines
Quoted 11 lines
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 3 lines
(quoted diff) +2
-0+ + memory_region_add_subregion(&hpms->mr, addr - hpms->base,mr);
missing vmstate registration?
Missed this one: To be called by the caller. Important because e.g. for
virtio-pmem we don't want this (I assume :) ).if pmem isn't on shared storage, then We'd probably want to migrate it as well, otherwise target would experience data loss. Anyways, I'd just reat it as normal RAM in migration case
Quoted 7 lines
Main difference between RAM and pmem it acts like combination of RAM and
disk.
Saying this, in normal use-case size would be 100 GB's - few TB's range.
I am not sure we really want to migrate it for non-shared storage use-case.Quoted 4 lines
with non shared storage you'd have to migrate it target host but with shared storage it might be possible to flush it and use directly from target host. That probably won't work right out of box and would need some sort of synchronization between src/dst hosts.
Shared storage should work out of the box.
Only thing is data in destination
host will be cache cold and existing pages in cache should be invalidated first.
But if we migrate entire fake DAX RAMstate it will populate destination host page
cache including pages while were idle in source host. This would unnecessarily
create entropy in destination host.Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines
To me this feature don't make much sense. Problem which we are solving is:
Efficiently use guest RAM.What would live migration handover flow look like in case of guest constantly dirting memory provided by virtio-pmem and and sometimes issuing async flush req along with it?
Quoted 5 lines
Dirty entire pmem (disk) at once not a usual scenario. Some part of disk/pmem would get dirty and we need to handle that. I just want to say moving entire pmem (disk) is not efficient solution because we are using this solution to manage guest memory efficiently. Otherwise it will be like any block device copy with non-shared storage.
not sure if we can use block layer analogy here.
Quoted 16 lines
Quoted 16 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 2 lines
The same applies to nv/pc-dimm as well, as backend file easily could be on pmem storage as well.
Are you saying backing file is in actual actual nvdimm hardware? we don't need
emulation at all.depends on if file is on DAX filesystem, but your argument about migrating huge 100Gb- TB's range applies in this case as well.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Maybe for now we should migrate everything so it would work in case of non shared NVDIMM on host. And then later add migration-less capability to all of them.
not sure I agree.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 2 lines
So would you inhibit migration in case of non shared backend storage, to avoid loosing data since they aren't migrated?
I am just thinking what features we want to support with pmem. And live migration with shared storage is the one which comes to my mind.
If live migration with non-shared storage is what we want to support (I don't know yet) we can add this? Even with shared storage it would copy entire pmem state?
Quoted 7 lines
Perhaps we should register vmstate like for normal ram and use something similar to
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2018-04/msg00003.html this
to skip shared memory on migration.
In this case we could use this for pc-dimms as well.David,
what's your take on it?
(I assume you were talking to David Gilbert, but still my take on it :))
"shared RAM" use in that context is rather "shared between processes", no? What would be the benefit of enabling migration for a ramblock but then again blocking it off?
Anyhow, I think this detail discussion is way to early right now. Pankaj has some other problems to solve before moving on to migration (yes, migration is important to keep in mind but not the top priority right now). And I would consider migration in this context as the next step once we have the basics sorted out (flushing, threads ...)
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Thanks,
Pankaj
Signature · 3 lines
Thanks, David / dhildenb
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 3/3] virtio-pmem: should we make it migratable???
Quoted 99 lines
Quoted 84 lines
Quoted 45 lines
Quoted 38 lines
Quoted 38 lines
Quoted 22 lines
Quoted 15 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 6 lines
(quoted diff) +2
-0+ + memory_region_add_subregion(&hpms->mr, addr - hpms->base,mr);
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 1 line
missing vmstate registration?
Missed this one: To be called by the caller. Important because e.g. for
virtio-pmem we don't want this (I assume :) ).if pmem isn't on shared storage, then We'd probably want to migrate it as well, otherwise target would experience data loss. Anyways, I'd just reat it as normal RAM in migration case
Quoted 7 lines
Main difference between RAM and pmem it acts like combination of RAM and
disk.
Saying this, in normal use-case size would be 100 GB's - few TB's range.
I am not sure we really want to migrate it for non-shared storage use-case.Quoted 4 lines
with non shared storage you'd have to migrate it target host but with shared storage it might be possible to flush it and use directly from target host. That probably won't work right out of box and would need some sort of synchronization between src/dst hosts.
Shared storage should work out of the box.
Only thing is data in destination
host will be cache cold and existing pages in cache should be invalidated
first.
But if we migrate entire fake DAX RAMstate it will populate destination host page
cache including pages while were idle in source host. This would unnecessarily
create entropy in destination host.Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 3 lines
To me this feature don't make much sense. Problem which we are solving is:
Efficiently use guest RAM.What would live migration handover flow look like in case of guest constantly dirting memory provided by virtio-pmem and and sometimes issuing async flush req along with it?
Quoted 9 lines
Dirty entire pmem (disk) at once not a usual scenario. Some part of disk/pmem
would get dirty and we need to handle that. I just want to say moving entire
pmem (disk) is not efficient solution because we are using this solution to
manage guest memory efficiently. Otherwise it will be like any block device copy
with non-shared storage.not sure if we can use block layer analogy here.
Quoted 20 lines
Quoted 12 lines
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
The same applies to nv/pc-dimm as well, as backend file easily could be on pmem storage as well.
Are you saying backing file is in actual actual nvdimm hardware? we don't
need
emulation at all.depends on if file is on DAX filesystem, but your argument about migrating huge 100Gb- TB's range applies in this case as well.
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Maybe for now we should migrate everything so it would work in case of non shared NVDIMM on host. And then later add migration-less capability to all of them.
not sure I agree.
So would you inhibit migration in case of non shared backend storage, to avoid loosing data since they aren't migrated?
Quoted 8 lines
I am just thinking what features we want to support with pmem. And live migration
with shared storage is the one which comes to my mind.If live migration with non-shared storage is what we want to support (I don't know
yet) we can add this? Even with shared storage it would copy entire pmem state?Quoted 8 lines
Perhaps we should register vmstate like for normal ram and use something similar to
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2018-04/msg00003.html this
to skip shared memory on migration.
In this case we could use this for pc-dimms as well.David,
what's your take on it?(I assume you were talking to David Gilbert, but still my take on it :))
"shared RAM" use in that context is rather "shared between processes", no? What would be the benefit of enabling migration for a ramblock but then again blocking it off?
Quoted 5 lines
Anyhow, I think this detail discussion is way to early right now. Pankaj has some other problems to solve before moving on to migration (yes, migration is important to keep in mind but not the top priority right now). And I would consider migration in this context as the next step once we have the basics sorted out (flushing, threads ...)
Right. Still it would be very helpful to have Dave Gilbert's inputs on this ongoing discussion. That would clear some doubts regarding expectation for this type of memory from live migration point of view.
Then we can discuss in more details after we have first version accepted and start optimization for live migration.
Thanks,
Pankaj
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 3/3] virtio-pmem: should we make it migratable???
In reply to Igor MammedovQuoted 77 lines · * Igor Mammedov ([email protected]) wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 03:37:51 -0400 (EDT)
Pankaj Gupta <[email protected]> wrote:trimming CC list to keep people that might be interested in the topic and renaming thread to reflect it.
Quoted 40 lines
Quoted 34 lines
Quoted 34 lines
Quoted 19 lines
Quoted 12 lines
Quoted 11 lines
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 3 lines
(quoted diff) +2
-0+ + memory_region_add_subregion(&hpms->mr, addr - hpms->base,mr);
missing vmstate registration?
Missed this one: To be called by the caller. Important because e.g. for
virtio-pmem we don't want this (I assume :) ).if pmem isn't on shared storage, then We'd probably want to migrate it as well, otherwise target would experience data loss. Anyways, I'd just reat it as normal RAM in migration case
Quoted 7 lines
Main difference between RAM and pmem it acts like combination of RAM and
disk.
Saying this, in normal use-case size would be 100 GB's - few TB's range.
I am not sure we really want to migrate it for non-shared storage use-case.Quoted 4 lines
with non shared storage you'd have to migrate it target host but with shared storage it might be possible to flush it and use directly from target host. That probably won't work right out of box and would need some sort of synchronization between src/dst hosts.
Shared storage should work out of the box.
Only thing is data in destination
host will be cache cold and existing pages in cache should be invalidated first.
But if we migrate entire fake DAX RAMstate it will populate destination host page
cache including pages while were idle in source host. This would unnecessarily
create entropy in destination host.Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines
To me this feature don't make much sense. Problem which we are solving is:
Efficiently use guest RAM.What would live migration handover flow look like in case of guest constantly dirting memory provided by virtio-pmem and and sometimes issuing async flush req along with it?
Quoted 5 lines
Dirty entire pmem (disk) at once not a usual scenario. Some part of disk/pmem would get dirty and we need to handle that. I just want to say moving entire pmem (disk) is not efficient solution because we are using this solution to manage guest memory efficiently. Otherwise it will be like any block device copy with non-shared storage.
not sure if we can use block layer analogy here.
Quoted 16 lines
Quoted 16 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 2 lines
The same applies to nv/pc-dimm as well, as backend file easily could be on pmem storage as well.
Are you saying backing file is in actual actual nvdimm hardware? we don't need
emulation at all.depends on if file is on DAX filesystem, but your argument about migrating huge 100Gb- TB's range applies in this case as well.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Maybe for now we should migrate everything so it would work in case of non shared NVDIMM on host. And then later add migration-less capability to all of them.
not sure I agree.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 2 lines
So would you inhibit migration in case of non shared backend storage, to avoid loosing data since they aren't migrated?
I am just thinking what features we want to support with pmem. And live migration with shared storage is the one which comes to my mind.
If live migration with non-shared storage is what we want to support (I don't know yet) we can add this? Even with shared storage it would copy entire pmem state?
Quoted 7 lines
Perhaps we should register vmstate like for normal ram and use something similar to
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2018-04/msg00003.html this
to skip shared memory on migration.
In this case we could use this for pc-dimms as well.David,
what's your take on it?
My feel is that something is going to have to migrate it, I'm just not sure how.
So let me just check I understand:
a) It's potentially huge
b) It's a RAMBlock
c) It's backed by ????
c1) Something machine local - i.e. a physical lump of flash in a
socket rather than something sharable by machines?
d) It can potentially be rapidly changing as the guest writes to it?
Dave
Quoted 22 lines
Quoted 22 lines
Thanks,
PankajQuoted 19 lines
Quoted 19 lines
Quoted 11 lines
Quoted 11 lines
One reason why nvdimm added vmstate info could be: still there would be transient
writes in memory with fake DAX and there is no way(till now) to flush the
guest
writes. But with virtio-pmem we can flush such writes before migration and
automatically
at destination host with shared disk we will have updated data.Quoted 5 lines
nvdimm has concept of flush address hint (may be not implemented in qemu yet)
but it can flush. The only reason I'm buying into virtio-mem idea is that would allow async flush queues which would reduce number of vmexits.Thats correct.
Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Thanks,
Pankaj
--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / [email protected] / Manchester, UK
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 3/3] virtio-pmem: should we make it migratable???
Quoted 83 lines · On Fri, 4 May 2018 13:26:51 +0100 "Dr. David Alan Gilbert"…
Quoted 82 lines · * Igor Mammedov ([email protected]) wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 03:37:51 -0400 (EDT)
Pankaj Gupta <[email protected]> wrote:trimming CC list to keep people that might be interested in the topic and renaming thread to reflect it.
Quoted 40 lines
Quoted 34 lines
Quoted 34 lines
Quoted 19 lines
Quoted 12 lines
Quoted 11 lines
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 3 lines
(quoted diff) +2
-0+ + memory_region_add_subregion(&hpms->mr, addr - hpms->base,mr);
missing vmstate registration?
Missed this one: To be called by the caller. Important because e.g. for
virtio-pmem we don't want this (I assume :) ).if pmem isn't on shared storage, then We'd probably want to migrate it as well, otherwise target would experience data loss. Anyways, I'd just reat it as normal RAM in migration case
Quoted 7 lines
Main difference between RAM and pmem it acts like combination of RAM and
disk.
Saying this, in normal use-case size would be 100 GB's - few TB's range.
I am not sure we really want to migrate it for non-shared storage use-case.Quoted 4 lines
with non shared storage you'd have to migrate it target host but with shared storage it might be possible to flush it and use directly from target host. That probably won't work right out of box and would need some sort of synchronization between src/dst hosts.
Shared storage should work out of the box.
Only thing is data in destination
host will be cache cold and existing pages in cache should be invalidated first.
But if we migrate entire fake DAX RAMstate it will populate destination host page
cache including pages while were idle in source host. This would unnecessarily
create entropy in destination host.Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines
To me this feature don't make much sense. Problem which we are solving is:
Efficiently use guest RAM.What would live migration handover flow look like in case of guest constantly dirting memory provided by virtio-pmem and and sometimes issuing async flush req along with it?
Quoted 5 lines
Dirty entire pmem (disk) at once not a usual scenario. Some part of disk/pmem would get dirty and we need to handle that. I just want to say moving entire pmem (disk) is not efficient solution because we are using this solution to manage guest memory efficiently. Otherwise it will be like any block device copy with non-shared storage.
not sure if we can use block layer analogy here.
Quoted 16 lines
Quoted 16 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 2 lines
The same applies to nv/pc-dimm as well, as backend file easily could be on pmem storage as well.
Are you saying backing file is in actual actual nvdimm hardware? we don't need
emulation at all.depends on if file is on DAX filesystem, but your argument about migrating huge 100Gb- TB's range applies in this case as well.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Maybe for now we should migrate everything so it would work in case of non shared NVDIMM on host. And then later add migration-less capability to all of them.
not sure I agree.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 2 lines
So would you inhibit migration in case of non shared backend storage, to avoid loosing data since they aren't migrated?
I am just thinking what features we want to support with pmem. And live migration with shared storage is the one which comes to my mind.
If live migration with non-shared storage is what we want to support (I don't know yet) we can add this? Even with shared storage it would copy entire pmem state?
Perhaps we should register vmstate like for normal ram and use something similar to
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2018-04/msg00003.html this
to skip shared memory on migration.
In this case we could use this for pc-dimms as well.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
David,
what's your take on it?My feel is that something is going to have to migrate it, I'm just not sure how.
So let me just check I understand:
a) It's potentially huge
yep, assume it could be in storage quarantines (100s of Gb)
Quoted 1 line
b) It's a RAMBlock
it is
Quoted 3 lines
c) It's backed by ????
c1) Something machine local - i.e. a physical lump of flash in a
socket rather than something sharable by machines?
it's backed by memory-backend-foo, so it could be really anything (RAM, file on local or shared storage, file descriptor)
Quoted 1 line
d) It can potentially be rapidly changing as the guest writes to it?
it's sort of like NVDIMM but without NVDIMM interface, it uses virtio to to force flushing instead. Otherwise it's directly mapped into guest address space, so guest can do anything with it including fast dirtying.
Quoted 35 lines
Dave
Quoted 22 lines
Quoted 22 lines
Thanks,
PankajQuoted 19 lines
Quoted 19 lines
Quoted 11 lines
Quoted 11 lines
One reason why nvdimm added vmstate info could be: still there would be transient
writes in memory with fake DAX and there is no way(till now) to flush the
guest
writes. But with virtio-pmem we can flush such writes before migration and
automatically
at destination host with shared disk we will have updated data.Quoted 5 lines
nvdimm has concept of flush address hint (may be not implemented in qemu yet)
but it can flush. The only reason I'm buying into virtio-mem idea is that would allow async flush queues which would reduce number of vmexits.Thats correct.
Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Thanks,
Pankaj--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / [email protected] / Manchester, UK
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 3/3] virtio-pmem: should we make it migratable???
Quoted 120 lines
Quoted 106 lines · On Fri, 4 May 2018 13:26:51 +0100 "Dr. David Alan Gilbert"…
Quoted 105 lines · * Igor Mammedov ([email protected]) wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 03:37:51 -0400 (EDT)
Pankaj Gupta <[email protected]> wrote:trimming CC list to keep people that might be interested in the topic and renaming thread to reflect it.
Quoted 51 lines
Quoted 44 lines
Quoted 44 lines
Quoted 25 lines
Quoted 15 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 4 lines
(quoted diff) +2
-0+ + memory_region_add_subregion(&hpms->mr, addr -
hpms->base,
mr);missing vmstate registration?
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Missed this one: To be called by the caller. Important because e.g.
for
virtio-pmem we don't want this (I assume :) ).if pmem isn't on shared storage, then We'd probably want to migrate
it as well, otherwise target would experience data loss. Anyways, I'd just reat it as normal RAM in migration caseQuoted 10 lines
Main difference between RAM and pmem it acts like combination of RAM
and
disk.
Saying this, in normal use-case size would be 100 GB's - few TB's
range.
I am not sure we really want to migrate it for non-shared storage
use-case.Quoted 6 lines
with non shared storage you'd have to migrate it target host but with shared storage it might be possible to flush it and use directly
from target host. That probably won't work right out of box and would
need some sort of synchronization between src/dst hosts.Shared storage should work out of the box.
Only thing is data in destination
host will be cache cold and existing pages in cache should be invalidated
first.
But if we migrate entire fake DAX RAMstate it will populate destination
host page
cache including pages while were idle in source host. This would unnecessarily
create entropy in destination host.Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 3 lines
To me this feature don't make much sense. Problem which we are solving is:
Efficiently use guest RAM.What would live migration handover flow look like in case of guest constantly dirting memory provided by virtio-pmem and and sometimes issuing async flush req along with it?
Quoted 9 lines
Dirty entire pmem (disk) at once not a usual scenario. Some part of disk/pmem
would get dirty and we need to handle that. I just want to say moving entire
pmem (disk) is not efficient solution because we are using this solution to
manage guest memory efficiently. Otherwise it will be like any block device copy
with non-shared storage.not sure if we can use block layer analogy here.
Quoted 23 lines
Quoted 19 lines
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 3 lines
The same applies to nv/pc-dimm as well, as backend file easily could be
on pmem storage as well.Are you saying backing file is in actual actual nvdimm hardware? we don't
need
emulation at all.depends on if file is on DAX filesystem, but your argument about migrating huge 100Gb- TB's range applies in this case as well.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 7 lines
Maybe for now we should migrate everything so it would work in case of
non shared NVDIMM on host. And then later add migration-less capability
to all of them.Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 1 line
not sure I agree.
So would you inhibit migration in case of non shared backend storage, to avoid loosing data since they aren't migrated?
Quoted 8 lines
I am just thinking what features we want to support with pmem. And live migration
with shared storage is the one which comes to my mind.If live migration with non-shared storage is what we want to support (I don't know
yet) we can add this? Even with shared storage it would copy entire pmem state?Perhaps we should register vmstate like for normal ram and use something similar to
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2018-04/msg00003.html this
to skip shared memory on migration.
In this case we could use this for pc-dimms as well.Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
David,
what's your take on it?My feel is that something is going to have to migrate it, I'm just not sure how.
So let me just check I understand:
a) It's potentially hugeyep, assume it could be in storage quarantines (100s of Gb)
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 1 line
b) It's a RAMBlock
it is
Quoted 3 lines
c) It's backed by ????
c1) Something machine local - i.e. a physical lump of flash in a
socket rather than something sharable by machines?it's backed by memory-backend-foo, so it could be really anything (RAM, file on local or shared storage, file descriptor)
Just a point I want to add.
Currently, we are proposing file-backed memory which is 'mmaped' in Qemu address space. This is to achieve 'persistent' property similar to real NVDIMM storage. Latest guest writes should be synced to backed file after guest performs a 'fsync' operation with DAX capable file-system.
Quoted 49 lines
Quoted 2 lines
d) It can potentially be rapidly changing as the guest writes to it?
it's sort of like NVDIMM but without NVDIMM interface, it uses virtio to to force flushing instead. Otherwise it's directly mapped into guest address space, so guest can do anything with it including fast dirtying.
Quoted 39 lines
Dave
Quoted 26 lines
Quoted 26 lines
Thanks,
PankajQuoted 23 lines
Quoted 23 lines
Quoted 14 lines
Quoted 14 lines
One reason why nvdimm added vmstate info could be: still there would be
transient
writes in memory with fake DAX and there is no way(till now) to flush
the
guest
writes. But with virtio-pmem we can flush such writes before migration
and
automatically
at destination host with shared disk we will have updated data.Quoted 6 lines
nvdimm has concept of flush address hint (may be not implemented in qemu
yet)
but it can flush. The only reason I'm buying into virtio-mem idea is that would allow async flush queues which would reduce number of vmexits.Thats correct.
Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Thanks,
Pankaj--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / [email protected] / Manchester, UK
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 3/3] virtio-pmem: should we make it migratable???
In reply to Igor MammedovQuoted 89 lines · * Igor Mammedov ([email protected]) wrote:
Quoted 86 lines · On Fri, 4 May 2018 13:26:51 +0100 "Dr. David Alan Gilbert"…
Quoted 84 lines · * Igor Mammedov ([email protected]) wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 03:37:51 -0400 (EDT)
Pankaj Gupta <[email protected]> wrote:trimming CC list to keep people that might be interested in the topic and renaming thread to reflect it.
Quoted 40 lines
Quoted 34 lines
Quoted 34 lines
Quoted 19 lines
Quoted 12 lines
Quoted 11 lines
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 3 lines
(quoted diff) +2
-0+ + memory_region_add_subregion(&hpms->mr, addr - hpms->base,mr);
missing vmstate registration?
Missed this one: To be called by the caller. Important because e.g. for
virtio-pmem we don't want this (I assume :) ).if pmem isn't on shared storage, then We'd probably want to migrate it as well, otherwise target would experience data loss. Anyways, I'd just reat it as normal RAM in migration case
Quoted 7 lines
Main difference between RAM and pmem it acts like combination of RAM and
disk.
Saying this, in normal use-case size would be 100 GB's - few TB's range.
I am not sure we really want to migrate it for non-shared storage use-case.Quoted 4 lines
with non shared storage you'd have to migrate it target host but with shared storage it might be possible to flush it and use directly from target host. That probably won't work right out of box and would need some sort of synchronization between src/dst hosts.
Shared storage should work out of the box.
Only thing is data in destination
host will be cache cold and existing pages in cache should be invalidated first.
But if we migrate entire fake DAX RAMstate it will populate destination host page
cache including pages while were idle in source host. This would unnecessarily
create entropy in destination host.Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines
To me this feature don't make much sense. Problem which we are solving is:
Efficiently use guest RAM.What would live migration handover flow look like in case of guest constantly dirting memory provided by virtio-pmem and and sometimes issuing async flush req along with it?
Quoted 5 lines
Dirty entire pmem (disk) at once not a usual scenario. Some part of disk/pmem would get dirty and we need to handle that. I just want to say moving entire pmem (disk) is not efficient solution because we are using this solution to manage guest memory efficiently. Otherwise it will be like any block device copy with non-shared storage.
not sure if we can use block layer analogy here.
Quoted 16 lines
Quoted 16 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 2 lines
The same applies to nv/pc-dimm as well, as backend file easily could be on pmem storage as well.
Are you saying backing file is in actual actual nvdimm hardware? we don't need
emulation at all.depends on if file is on DAX filesystem, but your argument about migrating huge 100Gb- TB's range applies in this case as well.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Maybe for now we should migrate everything so it would work in case of non shared NVDIMM on host. And then later add migration-less capability to all of them.
not sure I agree.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 2 lines
So would you inhibit migration in case of non shared backend storage, to avoid loosing data since they aren't migrated?
I am just thinking what features we want to support with pmem. And live migration with shared storage is the one which comes to my mind.
If live migration with non-shared storage is what we want to support (I don't know yet) we can add this? Even with shared storage it would copy entire pmem state?
Perhaps we should register vmstate like for normal ram and use something similar to
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2018-04/msg00003.html this
to skip shared memory on migration.
In this case we could use this for pc-dimms as well.David,
what's your take on it?
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 4 lines
My feel is that something is going to have to migrate it, I'm just not sure how.
So let me just check I understand:
a) It's potentially hugeyep, assume it could be in storage quarantines (100s of Gb)
Quoted 1 line
b) It's a RAMBlock
it is
Well, the good news is migration is going to try and migrate it. The bad news is migration is going to try and migrate it.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 3 lines
c) It's backed by ????
c1) Something machine local - i.e. a physical lump of flash in a
socket rather than something sharable by machines?it's backed by memory-backend-foo, so it could be really anything (RAM, file on local or shared storage, file descriptor)
OK, something is going to have to know whether it's on shared storage or
not and do something different in the two cases. If it's shared
storage then we need to find a way to stop migration trying to migrate it, because migrating data to the other host when both hosts are really backed by the same thing ends up with a corrupt mess; we've had block storage do that when they don't realise they're on an NFS share. There are a few patches on the list to exclude migration from some RAMBlock's, so we can build on that once we figure out how we know if it's shared or not.
If it is shared, then we've also got to worry about consistency to ensure that the last few writes on the source make it to the destination before the destination starts, that the destination hasn't cached any old stuff, and that a failing migraiton lands back on the source without the destination having changed anything.
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 1 line
d) It can potentially be rapidly changing as the guest writes to it?
it's sort of like NVDIMM but without NVDIMM interface, it uses virtio to to force flushing instead. Otherwise it's directly mapped into guest address space, so guest can do anything with it including fast dirtying.
OK.
Getting Postcopy to work with it might be a solution; but depending what the underlying fd looks like will probably need some kernel changes to get userfaultfd to work on it.
Postcopy on huge memories should work, but watch out for downtime due to sending the discard bitmaps.
(cc'd in Eric and Stefan)
Dave
Quoted 34 lines
Quoted 34 lines
Dave
Quoted 31 lines
Quoted 30 lines
Thanks,
PankajQuoted 26 lines
Quoted 23 lines
Quoted 11 lines
Quoted 11 lines
One reason why nvdimm added vmstate info could be: still there would be transient
writes in memory with fake DAX and there is no way(till now) to flush the
guest
writes. But with virtio-pmem we can flush such writes before migration and
automatically
at destination host with shared disk we will have updated data.Quoted 5 lines
nvdimm has concept of flush address hint (may be not implemented in qemu yet)
but it can flush. The only reason I'm buying into virtio-mem idea is that would allow async flush queues which would reduce number of vmexits.Thats correct.
Thanks,
Pankaj
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 2 lines
--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / [email protected] / Manchester, UK
--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / [email protected] / Manchester, UK
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 3/3] pc-dimm: factor out address space logic into MemoryDevice code
In reply to Igor MammedovQuoted 39 lines · Igor Mammedov
Quoted 5 lines · On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 14:34:56 +0200 David Hildenbrand <[email protected]> wrote:
To be able to reuse MemoryDevice logic from other devices besides pc-dimm, factor the relevant stuff out into the MemoryDevice code.
As we don't care about slots for memory devices that are not pc-dimm, don't factor that part out.
that's not really true, you still consume kvm and vhost slots (whatever it is) whenever you map it into address space as ram memory region.
Also
ram_slotscurrently are (ab)used as flag that user enabled memory hotplug via CLI.Quoted 3 lines
Most of this patch just moves checks and logic around. While at it, make the code properly detect certain error conditions better (e.g. fragmented memory).
I'd suggest splitting patch in several smaller ones if possible, especially parts that do anything more than just moving code around.
Quoted 18 lines
Signed-off-by David Hildenbrand <[email protected]>--- hw/i386/pc.c | 12 +-- hw/mem/memory-device.c | 162 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ hw/mem/pc-dimm.c | 185 +++-------------------------------------- hw/ppc/spapr.c | 9 +- include/hw/mem/memory-device.h | 4 + include/hw/mem/pc-dimm.h | 14 +--- 6 files changed, 185 insertions(+), 201 deletions(-)hw/i386/pc.c +0
-0@@ -1711,7 +1711,7 @@ static void pc_dimm_plug(HotplugHandler *hotplug_dev, goto out; }
Quoted 8 lines
hw/i386/pc.c static void pc_dimm_plug(HotplugHandler *hotplug_dev, · line 1714
Quoted 2 lines
hw/i386/pc.c +1
-1-pc_dimm_memory_plug (dev, &pcms->hotplug_memory, mr, align, &local_err); +pc_dimm_memory_plug (dev, align, &local_err);Is there a reason why you are dropping
pcms->hotplug_memoryargument and fall back toqdev_get_machine()?I'd rather see it going other direction,
i.e. movehotplug_memoryfrom PC
machine to MachineState and then pass it down as argument whenever it's needed.
FWIW, I think I found a way to split this into smaller patches.
The current prototypes will look like this for pc_dimm
void pc_dimm_memory_plug(DeviceState *dev, MachineState *machine,
uint64_t align, Error **errp);
void pc_dimm_memory_unplug(DeviceState *dev, MachineState *machine);
I am not sure yet if I'll work on the pre-plug stuff for pc-dimm (I want to get memory devices running not rewrite all of the pc-dimm memory hotplug code :) ), but that can be reworked later on easily.
Signature · 3 lines
Thanks, David / dhildenb
Hello,
This is good re-factoring and needed for 'virtio-pmem' as well to reserve memory region in system address space.
I have tested this code with virtio-pmem and its working fine. Thank you for the work.
I just have a small suggestion : when functions like(get_addr(), get_plugged_size etc) in the interface are not provided by derived class, Qemu crashes.
I think having a contract for must override functions with NULL check and error at the calling sites would be better?
Thanks,
Pankaj
Quoted 51 lines
Right now we can only map PCDIMM/NVDIMM into guest address space. In the future, we might want to do the same for virtio devices - e.g. virtio-pmem or virtio-mem. Especially, they should be able to live side by side to each other.
E.g. the virto based memory devices regions will not be exposed via ACPI and friends. They will be detected just like other virtio devices and indicate the applicable memory region. This makes it possible to also use them on architectures without memory device detection support (e.g. s390x).
Let's factor out the memory device code into a MemoryDevice interface.
v2 -> v3:
- "pc-dimm: factor out MemoryDevice interface" --> Lookup both classes when comparing (David Gibson)v1 -> v2:
- Fix compile issues on ppc (still untested )David Hildenbrand (3):
pc-dimm: factor out MemoryDevice interface
machine: make MemoryHotplugState accessible via the machine
pc-dimm: factor out address space logic into MemoryDevice codehw/i386/acpi-build.c | 3 +- hw/i386/pc.c | 24 ++- hw/mem/Makefile.objs | 1 + hw/mem/memory-device.c | 282 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ hw/mem/pc-dimm.c | 304 +++++++-------------------- hw/ppc/spapr.c | 24 ++- hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c | 1 + include/hw/boards.h | 16 ++ include/hw/mem/memory-device.h | 48 +++++ include/hw/mem/pc-dimm.h | 26 +-- numa.c | 3 +- qmp.c | 4 +- stubs/Makefile.objs | 2 +- stubs/{qmp_pc_dimm.c => qmp_memory_device.c} | 4 +- 14 files changed, 465 insertions(+), 277 deletions(-) create mode 100644 hw/mem/memory-device.c create mode 100644 include/hw/mem/memory-device.h rename stubs/{qmp_pc_dimm.c => qmp_memory_device.c} (61%)--
2.14.3
Quoted 6 lines · Pankaj Gupta
Hello,
This is good re-factoring and needed for 'virtio-pmem' as well to reserve memory region in system address space.
Quoted 8 lines
I have tested this code with virtio-pmem and its working fine. Thank you for the work.
I just have a small suggestion : when functions
like(get_addr(), get_plugged_size etc)in the interface are not provided by derived class, Qemu crashes.I think having a contract for must override functions with NULL check and error at the calling sites would be better?
I expect that all of these functions are implemented. It's a contract for devices that are mapped into address space. We might later have additional functions that might not be required to be provided and will be checked for NULL.
So for the current set of functions, I don't think it makes sense to make them optional.
Thanks!
Quoted 3 lines
Thanks,
Pankaj
Signature · 3 lines
Thanks, David / dhildenb
Quoted 18 lines
Quoted 10 lines
Hello,
This is good re-factoring and needed for 'virtio-pmem' as well to reserve memory region in system address space.
I have tested this code with virtio-pmem and its working fine. Thank you for the work.
Quoted 7 lines
I just have a small suggestion : when functions
like(get_addr(), get_plugged_size etc)
in the interface are not provided by derived class, Qemu crashes.I think having a contract for must override functions with NULL check and error
at the calling sites would be better?
Quoted 7 lines
I expect that all of these functions are implemented. It's a contract for devices that are mapped into address space. We might later have additional functions that might not be required to be provided and will be checked for NULL.
So for the current set of functions, I don't think it makes sense to make them optional.
o.k. that's reasonable.
Thanks,
Pankaj
Quoted 14 lines
Thanks!
Quoted 3 lines
Thanks,
Pankaj--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Quoted 11 lines · On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 14:34:53 +0200 David Hildenbrand <[email protected]> wrote:
Right now we can only map PCDIMM/NVDIMM into guest address space. In the future, we might want to do the same for virtio devices - e.g. virtio-pmem or virtio-mem. Especially, they should be able to live side by side to each other.
E.g. the virto based memory devices regions will not be exposed via ACPI and friends. They will be detected just like other virtio devices and indicate the applicable memory region. This makes it possible to also use them on architectures without memory device detection support (e.g. s390x).
Let's factor out the memory device code into a MemoryDevice interface.
A couple of high level questions as relevant code is not here:
1. what would hotplug/unplug call chain look like in case of virtio-pmem device (reason I'm asking is that pmem being PCI device would trigger PCI bus hotplug controller and then it somehow should piggyback to Machine provided hotplug handlers, so I wonder what kind of havoc it would cause on hotplug infrastructure)
2. why not use PCI bar mapping mechanism to do mapping since pmem is PCI device?
Quoted 32 lines
v2 -> v3:
- "pc-dimm: factor out MemoryDevice interface" --> Lookup both classes when comparing (David Gibson)v1 -> v2:
- Fix compile issues on ppc (still untested )David Hildenbrand (3):
pc-dimm: factor out MemoryDevice interface
machine: make MemoryHotplugState accessible via the machine
pc-dimm: factor out address space logic into MemoryDevice codehw/i386/acpi-build.c | 3 +- hw/i386/pc.c | 24 ++- hw/mem/Makefile.objs | 1 + hw/mem/memory-device.c | 282 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ hw/mem/pc-dimm.c | 304 +++++++-------------------- hw/ppc/spapr.c | 24 ++- hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c | 1 + include/hw/boards.h | 16 ++ include/hw/mem/memory-device.h | 48 +++++ include/hw/mem/pc-dimm.h | 26 +-- numa.c | 3 +- qmp.c | 4 +- stubs/Makefile.objs | 2 +- stubs/{qmp_pc_dimm.c => qmp_memory_device.c} | 4 +- 14 files changed, 465 insertions(+), 277 deletions(-) create mode 100644 hw/mem/memory-device.c create mode 100644 include/hw/mem/memory-device.h rename stubs/{qmp_pc_dimm.c => qmp_memory_device.c} (61%)
Quoted 8 lines · Igor Mammedov
Quoted 5 lines · On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 14:34:53 +0200 David Hildenbrand <[email protected]> wrote:
Right now we can only map PCDIMM/NVDIMM into guest address space. In the future, we might want to do the same for virtio devices - e.g. virtio-pmem or virtio-mem. Especially, they should be able to live side by side to each other.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 6 lines
E.g. the virto based memory devices regions will not be exposed via ACPI and friends. They will be detected just like other virtio devices and indicate the applicable memory region. This makes it possible to also use them on architectures without memory device detection support (e.g. s390x).
Let's factor out the memory device code into a MemoryDevice interface.
A couple of high level questions as relevant code is not here:
Important remark first: We also have s390x with virtio-ccw.
This essentially will also allow s390x guests to have
- memory hotplug via virtio-mem
- fake dax devices via virtio-pmem
Quoted 8 lines
1. what would hotplug/unplug call chain look like in case of virtio-pmem device (reason I'm asking is that pmem being PCI device would trigger PCI bus hotplug controller and then it somehow should piggyback to Machine provided hotplug handlers, so I wonder what kind of havoc it would cause on hotplug infrastructure)
2. why not use PCI bar mapping mechanism to do mapping since pmem is PCI device?
pmem might be a PCI device, but virtio-pmem is a virtio device (however it will be exposed via a proxy)
Quoted 1 line
I think both questions are best answered by Pankaj (already on CC).
Signature · 3 lines
Thanks, David / dhildenb
Hi Igor,
Quoted 12 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Right now we can only map PCDIMM/NVDIMM into guest address space. In the future, we might want to do the same for virtio devices - e.g. virtio-pmem or virtio-mem. Especially, they should be able to live side by side to each other.
Quoted 6 lines
E.g. the virto based memory devices regions will not be exposed via ACPI and friends. They will be detected just like other virtio devices and indicate the applicable memory region. This makes it possible to also use them on architectures without memory device detection support (e.g. s390x).
Let's factor out the memory device code into a MemoryDevice interface.
Quoted 8 lines
A couple of high level questions as relevant code is not here:
1. what would hotplug/unplug call chain look like in case of virtio-pmem device
(reason I'm asking is that pmem being PCI device would trigger
PCI bus hotplug controller and then it somehow should piggyback to Machine provided hotplug handlers, so I wonder what kind of havoc it would cause on hotplug infrastructure)
For first phase we are using 'virtio-pmem' as cold added devices. AFAIU 'VirtioDeviceClass' being parent class and 'hotplug/unplug' methods implemented for virtio-pmem device. So, pci bus hotplug/unplug should call the corresponding functions?
Quoted 3 lines
2. why not use PCI bar mapping mechanism to do mapping since pmem is PCI device?
I think even we use if as PCI BAR mapping with PCI we still need free guest physical address to provide to VM for mapping the memory range. For that there needs to
be coordination between PCDIMM and VIRTIO pci device? Also, if we use RAM from QEMU address space tied to big region(system_memory) memory accounting gets easier and at single place.
Honestly speaking I don't think there will be much difference between the two approaches? unless I am missing something important?
Quoted 39 lines
Quoted 36 lines
v2 -> v3:
- "pc-dimm: factor out MemoryDevice interface" --> Lookup both classes when comparing (David Gibson)v1 -> v2:
- Fix compile issues on ppc (still untested )David Hildenbrand (3):
pc-dimm: factor out MemoryDevice interface
machine: make MemoryHotplugState accessible via the machine
pc-dimm: factor out address space logic into MemoryDevice codehw/i386/acpi-build.c | 3 +- hw/i386/pc.c | 24 ++- hw/mem/Makefile.objs | 1 + hw/mem/memory-device.c | 282 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ hw/mem/pc-dimm.c | 304 +++++++-------------------- hw/ppc/spapr.c | 24 ++- hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c | 1 + include/hw/boards.h | 16 ++ include/hw/mem/memory-device.h | 48 +++++ include/hw/mem/pc-dimm.h | 26 +-- numa.c | 3 +- qmp.c | 4 +- stubs/Makefile.objs | 2 +- stubs/{qmp_pc_dimm.c => qmp_memory_device.c} | 4 +- 14 files changed, 465 insertions(+), 277 deletions(-) create mode 100644 hw/mem/memory-device.c create mode 100644 include/hw/mem/memory-device.h rename stubs/{qmp_pc_dimm.c => qmp_memory_device.c} (61%)
Quoted 33 lines · Pankaj Gupta
Hi Igor,
Quoted 12 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Right now we can only map PCDIMM/NVDIMM into guest address space. In the future, we might want to do the same for virtio devices - e.g. virtio-pmem or virtio-mem. Especially, they should be able to live side by side to each other.
Quoted 6 lines
E.g. the virto based memory devices regions will not be exposed via ACPI and friends. They will be detected just like other virtio devices and indicate the applicable memory region. This makes it possible to also use them on architectures without memory device detection support (e.g. s390x).
Let's factor out the memory device code into a MemoryDevice interface.
Quoted 8 lines
A couple of high level questions as relevant code is not here:
1. what would hotplug/unplug call chain look like in case of virtio-pmem device
(reason I'm asking is that pmem being PCI device would trigger
PCI bus hotplug controller and then it somehow should piggyback to Machine provided hotplug handlers, so I wonder what kind of havoc it would cause on hotplug infrastructure)For first phase we are using 'virtio-pmem' as cold added devices. AFAIU 'VirtioDeviceClass' being parent class and 'hotplug/unplug' methods implemented for virtio-pmem device. So, pci bus hotplug/unplug should call the corresponding functions?
Quoted 3 lines
2. why not use PCI bar mapping mechanism to do mapping since pmem is PCI device?
Quoted 7 lines
I think even we use if as PCI BAR mapping with PCI we still need free guest physical address to provide to VM for mapping the memory range. For that there needs to
be coordination between PCDIMM and VIRTIO pci device? Also, if we use RAM from QEMU address space tied to bigregion(system_memory)memory accounting gets easier and at single place.Honestly speaking I don't think there will be much difference between the two approaches? unless I am missing something important?
The difference by gluing virtio devices to architecture specific technologies will be unnecessary complicated. (my humble opinion)
Signature · 3 lines
Thanks, David / dhildenb
Quoted 23 lines · On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 11:32:25 -0400 (EDT) Pankaj Gupta <[email protected]>…
Hi Igor,
Quoted 12 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Right now we can only map PCDIMM/NVDIMM into guest address space. In the future, we might want to do the same for virtio devices - e.g. virtio-pmem or virtio-mem. Especially, they should be able to live side by side to each other.
Quoted 6 lines
E.g. the virto based memory devices regions will not be exposed via ACPI and friends. They will be detected just like other virtio devices and indicate the applicable memory region. This makes it possible to also use them on architectures without memory device detection support (e.g. s390x).
Let's factor out the memory device code into a MemoryDevice interface.
Quoted 8 lines
A couple of high level questions as relevant code is not here:
1. what would hotplug/unplug call chain look like in case of virtio-pmem device
(reason I'm asking is that pmem being PCI device would trigger
PCI bus hotplug controller and then it somehow should piggyback to Machine provided hotplug handlers, so I wonder what kind of havoc it would cause on hotplug infrastructure)
Quoted 4 lines
For first phase we are using 'virtio-pmem' as cold added devices. AFAIU 'VirtioDeviceClass' being parent class and 'hotplug/unplug' methods implemented for virtio-pmem device. So, pci bus hotplug/unplug should call the corresponding functions?
the problem is with trying to use PCI bus based device with bus-less infrastructure used by (pc|nv)dimms.
The important point which we should not to break here while trying to glue PCI hotplug handler with machine hotplug handler is:
container MachineState::device_memory is owned by machine and it's up to machine plug handler (container's owner) to map device's mr into its address space.
(i.e. nor device's realize nor PCI bus hotplug handler should do it)
Not sure about virtio-mem but if it would use device_memory container, it should use machine's plug handler.
I don't have out head ideas how to glue it cleanly, may be MachineState::device_memory is just not right thing to use for such devices.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
2. why not use PCI bar mapping mechanism to do mapping since pmem is PCI device?
I think even we use if as PCI BAR mapping with PCI we still need free guest physical address to provide to VM for mapping the memory range. For that there needs to
be coordination between PCDIMM and VIRTIO pci device? Also, if we use RAM from QEMU address space tied to bigregion(system_memory)memory accounting gets easier and at single place.
if PCI bar mapping is used, then during accounting we would need to additionally scan system_memory for virtio-pmem device to account for its memory (not a huge deal as we even differentiate between pc-dimm and nvdimm when building a list of memory devices so special casing another device types won't hurt),
at least device management (most complex part) will be governed by respective subsystem the device belongs to.
Quoted 42 lines
Honestly speaking I don't think there will be much difference between the two approaches? unless I am missing something important?
Quoted 39 lines
Quoted 36 lines
v2 -> v3:
- "pc-dimm: factor out MemoryDevice interface" --> Lookup both classes when comparing (David Gibson)v1 -> v2:
- Fix compile issues on ppc (still untested )David Hildenbrand (3):
pc-dimm: factor out MemoryDevice interface
machine: make MemoryHotplugState accessible via the machine
pc-dimm: factor out address space logic into MemoryDevice codehw/i386/acpi-build.c | 3 +- hw/i386/pc.c | 24 ++- hw/mem/Makefile.objs | 1 + hw/mem/memory-device.c | 282 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ hw/mem/pc-dimm.c | 304 +++++++-------------------- hw/ppc/spapr.c | 24 ++- hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c | 1 + include/hw/boards.h | 16 ++ include/hw/mem/memory-device.h | 48 +++++ include/hw/mem/pc-dimm.h | 26 +-- numa.c | 3 +- qmp.c | 4 +- stubs/Makefile.objs | 2 +- stubs/{qmp_pc_dimm.c => qmp_memory_device.c} | 4 +- 14 files changed, 465 insertions(+), 277 deletions(-) create mode 100644 hw/mem/memory-device.c create mode 100644 include/hw/mem/memory-device.h rename stubs/{qmp_pc_dimm.c => qmp_memory_device.c} (61%)
Quoted 26 lines · Igor Mammedov
Quoted 23 lines · On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 11:32:25 -0400 (EDT) Pankaj Gupta <[email protected]>…
Hi Igor,
Quoted 20 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Right now we can only map PCDIMM/NVDIMM into guest address space. In the future, we might want to do the same for virtio devices - e.g. virtio-pmem or virtio-mem. Especially, they should be able to live side by side to each other.
Quoted 6 lines
E.g. the virto based memory devices regions will not be exposed via ACPI and friends. They will be detected just like other virtio devices and indicate the applicable memory region. This makes it possible to also use them on architectures without memory device detection support (e.g. s390x).
Let's factor out the memory device code into a MemoryDevice interface.
A couple of high level questions as relevant code is not here:
1. what would hotplug/unplug call chain look like in case of virtio-pmem device
(reason I'm asking is that pmem being PCI device would trigger
PCI bus hotplug controller and then it somehow should piggyback to Machine provided hotplug handlers, so I wonder what kind of havoc it would cause on hotplug infrastructure)
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 4 lines
For first phase we are using 'virtio-pmem' as cold added devices. AFAIU 'VirtioDeviceClass' being parent class and 'hotplug/unplug' methods implemented for virtio-pmem device. So, pci bus hotplug/unplug should call the corresponding functions?
the problem is with trying to use PCI bus based device with bus-less infrastructure used by (pc|nv)dimms.
I can understand your reasoning, but for me these are some QEMU internal details that should not stop the virtio-(p)mem train from rolling.
In my world, device hotplug is composed of the following steps
1. Resource allocation
2. Attaching the device to a bus (making it accessible by the guest)
3. Notifying the guest
I would e.g. also call ACPI sort of a bus structure. Now, the machine hotplug handler currently does parts of 1. and then hands of to ACPI to do 2 and 3.
virtio-mem and virtio-pmem do 1. partially in the realize function and then let 2. and 3. be handled by the proxy device specific hotplug handlers.
Mean people might say that the machine should not call the ACPI code but there should be a ACPI hotplug handler. So we would end up with the same result.
But anyhow, the resource allocation (getting an address and getting plugged) will be done in the first step out of the virtio-(p)mem realize function:
static void virtio_mem_device_realize(DeviceState *dev, Error **errp) {
...
/* try to get a mapping in guest address space */
vm->phys_addr = memory_device_get_free_addr(MACHINE(qdev_get_machine))...
if (local_err) {
goto out;
}
...
/* register the memory region */
memory_device_plug_region(MACHINE(qdev_get_machine()), vm->mr,
vm->phys_addr); ...
}
So this happens before any hotplug handler is called. Everything works just fine. What you don't like about this is the qdev_get_machine(). I also don't like it but in the short term I don't see any problem with it. It is resource allocation and not a "device plug" in the typical form.
Quoted 3 lines
The important point which we should not to break here while trying to glue PCI hotplug handler with machine hotplug handler is:
I could later on imagine something like a 2 step approach.
1. resource allocation handler by a machine for MemoryDevices
- assigns address, registers memory region
2. hotplug handler (ACPI, PCI, CCW ...)
- assigns bus specific stuff, attaches device, notifies guest
Importantly the device is not visible to the guest until 2. Of course, we could also take care of pre-plug things as you mentioned.
Quoted 5 lines
container
MachineState::device_memoryis owned by machine and it's up to machine plug handler (container's owner) to map device's mr into its address space.
(i.e. nor device's realize nor PCI bus hotplug handler should do it)
I agree, but I think these are internal details.
Quoted 7 lines
Not sure about virtio-mem but if it would use
device_memorycontainer, it should use machine's plug handler.I don't have out head ideas how to glue it cleanly, may be
MachineState::device_memoryis just not right thing to use for such devices.
I strongly disagree. From the user point of view it should not matter what was added/plugged. There is just one guest physical memory and maxmem is defined for one QEMU instance. Exposing such details to the user should definitely be avoided.
Signature · 3 lines
Thanks, David / dhildenb
Quoted 31 lines · On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 17:42:44 +0200 David Hildenbrand <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 30 lines · Igor Mammedov
Quoted 27 lines · On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 11:32:25 -0400 (EDT) Pankaj Gupta <[email protected]>…
Hi Igor,
Quoted 12 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Right now we can only map PCDIMM/NVDIMM into guest address space. In the future, we might want to do the same for virtio devices - e.g. virtio-pmem or virtio-mem. Especially, they should be able to live side by side to each other.
Quoted 6 lines
E.g. the virto based memory devices regions will not be exposed via ACPI and friends. They will be detected just like other virtio devices and indicate the applicable memory region. This makes it possible to also use them on architectures without memory device detection support (e.g. s390x).
Let's factor out the memory device code into a MemoryDevice interface.
Quoted 8 lines
A couple of high level questions as relevant code is not here:
1. what would hotplug/unplug call chain look like in case of virtio-pmem device
(reason I'm asking is that pmem being PCI device would trigger
PCI bus hotplug controller and then it somehow should piggyback to Machine provided hotplug handlers, so I wonder what kind of havoc it would cause on hotplug infrastructure)For first phase we are using 'virtio-pmem' as cold added devices. AFAIU 'VirtioDeviceClass' being parent class and 'hotplug/unplug' methods implemented for virtio-pmem device. So, pci bus hotplug/unplug should call the corresponding functions?
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines
the problem is with trying to use PCI bus based device with bus-less infrastructure used by (pc|nv)dimms.
I can understand your reasoning, but for me these are some QEMU internal details that should not stop the virtio-(p)mem train from rolling.
If it's quickly hacked up prototypes to play with than it's fine as far as they are not being merged into QEMU.
If one plans to merge it, then code should be adapted to whatever QEMU internal requirements are.
Quoted 8 lines
In my world, device hotplug is composed of the following steps
1. Resource allocation
2. Attaching the device to a bus (making it accessible by the guest)
3. Notifying the guestI would e.g. also call ACPI sort of a bus structure. Now, the machine hotplug handler currently does parts of 1. and then hands of to ACPI to do 2 and 3.
it's not a bus, it's concrete device implementing GPE logic, on x86 it does the job on notifier #3 in case of hotplug.
Quoted 5 lines
virtio-mem and virtio-pmem do 1. partially in the realize function and then let 2. and 3. be handled by the proxy device specific hotplug handlers.
Mean people might say that the machine should not call the ACPI code but there should be a ACPI hotplug handler. So we would end up with the same result.
it should be fine for parent to manage its children but not other way around
Quoted 8 lines
But anyhow, the resource allocation (getting an address and getting plugged) will be done in the first step out of the virtio-(p)mem realize function:
static void
virtio_mem_device_realize(DeviceState *dev, Error **errp){ ... /* try to get a mapping in guest address space */ vm->phys_addr = memory_device_get_free_addr(MACHINE(qdev_get_machine))...
this should be a property, and if it's not set then realize should error out
Quoted 8 lines
if (local_err) {
goto out;
}
...
/* register the memory region */
memory_device_plug_region(MACHINE(qdev_get_machine()), vm->mr,
vm->phys_addr);Quoted 7 lines
...
}So this happens before any hotplug handler is called. Everything works just fine. What you don't like about this is the
qdev_get_machine(). I also don't like it but in the short term I don't see any problem with it. It is resource allocation and not a "device plug" in the typical form.
It's not qdev_get_machine() that's issue, it's layer violation, where child device is allocating and mapping resources of one of its parents.
that's been an issue and show stopper for patches in the past, and that's probably not going to change in this case either.
Quoted 11 lines
Quoted 2 lines
The important point which we should not to break here while trying to glue PCI hotplug handler with machine hotplug handler is:
I could later on imagine something like a 2 step approach.
1. resource allocation handler by a machine for MemoryDevices
- assigns address, registers memory region
2. hotplug handler (ACPI, PCI, CCW ...)
- assigns bus specific stuff, attaches device, notifies guestImportantly the device is not visible to the guest until 2.
So far it's about how QEMU models and manages wiring process, that's why pre_plug/plug handlers were introduced, to allow resource owner to attach devices that's plugged into it.
i.e. PCI devices are managed by PCI subsystem and DIMM devices are managed by board where they are mapped into reserved address space by board code that owns it.
Allowing random device to manage board resources directly isn't really acceptable (even as temporary solution).
In case of virtio-pmem it might be much cleaner to use mapping mechanism provided by PCI sybsytem than trying to bridge bus and buss-less device wiring as from device modeling point of view (aside from providing RAM to guest) it's 2 quite different devices.
i.e. if you think new device is RAM, which is governed by -m option, then model it as bus-less device like dimm and plug it directly into board, if its plugged in to a bus it's that bus owner responsibility to allocate/manage address space or bridge it to parent device.
(btw: virtio-pmem looks sort of like ivshmem, maybe they can share some code on qemu side)
Quoted 9 lines
Of course, we could also take care of pre-plug things as you mentioned.
Quoted 5 lines
container
MachineState::device_memoryis owned by machine and it's up to machine plug handler (container's owner) to map device's mr into its address space.
(i.e. nor device's realize nor PCI bus hotplug handler should do it)I agree, but I think these are internal details.
it's internal details that we choose not to violate in QEMU and were working towards that direction, getting rid of places that do it wrongly.
Quoted 11 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Not sure about virtio-mem but if it would use
device_memorycontainer, it should use machine's plug handler.I don't have out head ideas how to glue it cleanly, may be
MachineState::device_memoryis just not right thing to use for such devices.I strongly disagree. From the user point of view it should not matter what was added/plugged. There is just one guest physical memory and maxmem is defined for one QEMU instance. Exposing such details to the user should definitely be avoided.
qemu user have to be exposed to details as he already adds
-device virtio-pmem,....
to CLI, maxmem accounting is a separate matter and probably shouldn't be mixed with device model and how it's mapped into guest's address space.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 5 lines
For first phase we are using 'virtio-pmem' as cold added devices. AFAIU 'VirtioDeviceClass' being parent class and 'hotplug/unplug' methods implemented for virtio-pmem device. So, pci bus hotplug/unplug should call the corresponding functions?
the problem is with trying to use PCI bus based device with bus-less infrastructure used by (pc|nv)dimms.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 2 lines
I can understand your reasoning, but for me these are some QEMU internal details that should not stop the virtio-(p)mem train from rolling.
If it's quickly hacked up prototypes to play with than it's fine as far as they are not being merged into QEMU.
If one plans to merge it, then code should be adapted to whatever QEMU internal requirements are.
At one point we will have to decide if we want to develop good software (which tolerates layer violations if there is a good excuse) or build the perfect internal architecture. And we all know the latter is not the case right now and never will be.
So yes, I will be looking into ways to make this work "nicer" internally, but quite frankly, it has very little priority.
Quoted 12 lines
Quoted 9 lines
In my world, device hotplug is composed of the following steps
1. Resource allocation
2. Attaching the device to a bus (making it accessible by the guest)
3. Notifying the guestI would e.g. also call ACPI sort of a bus structure. Now, the machine hotplug handler currently does parts of 1. and then hands of to ACPI to do 2 and 3.
it's not a bus, it's concrete device implementing GPE logic, on x86 it does the job on notifier #3 in case of hotplug.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 5 lines
virtio-mem and virtio-pmem do 1. partially in the realize function and then let 2. and 3. be handled by the proxy device specific hotplug handlers.
Mean people might say that the machine should not call the ACPI code but there should be a ACPI hotplug handler. So we would end up with the same result.
it should be fine for parent to manage its children but not other way around
A virtio-bus (e.g. CCW) also "belongs" to the machine. But we won't start to pass all device starting from the machine downwards to the concrete implementation.
(but I get your point)
Quoted 11 lines
Quoted 10 lines
But anyhow, the resource allocation (getting an address and getting plugged) will be done in the first step out of the virtio-(p)mem realize function:
static void
virtio_mem_device_realize(DeviceState *dev, Error **errp){ ... /* try to get a mapping in guest address space */ vm->phys_addr = memory_device_get_free_addr(MACHINE(qdev_get_machine))...this should be a property, and if it's not set then realize should error out
It is a property but if it is 0 we do auto-detection right now (like DIMM)
Quoted 12 lines
Quoted 12 lines
if (local_err) { goto out; } ... /* register the memory region */ memory_device_plug_region(MACHINE(qdev_get_machine()), vm->mr, vm->phys_addr);...
}
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 4 lines
So this happens before any hotplug handler is called. Everything works just fine. What you don't like about this is the
qdev_get_machine(). I also don't like it but in the short term I don't see any problem with it. It is resource allocation and not a "device plug" in the typical form.It's not
qdev_get_machine()that's issue, it's layer violation, where child device is allocating and mapping resources of one of its parents.
Quite simple: introduce a function at the machine where the child can "request" to get an address and "request" to plug/unplug a region.
Or what would be wrong about that?
Quoted 4 lines
that's been an issue and show stopper for patches in the past, and that's probably not going to change in this case either.
I can see that, but again, for me these are internal details.
Quoted 16 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 3 lines
The important point which we should not to break here while trying to glue PCI hotplug handler with machine hotplug handler is:
Quoted 8 lines
I could later on imagine something like a 2 step approach.
1. resource allocation handler by a machine for MemoryDevices
- assigns address, registers memory region
2. hotplug handler (ACPI, PCI, CCW ...)
- assigns bus specific stuff, attaches device, notifies guestImportantly the device is not visible to the guest until 2.
So far it's about how QEMU models and manages wiring process, that's why pre_plug/plug handlers were introduced, to allow resource owner to attach devices that's plugged into it.
Quoted 6 lines
i.e. PCI devices are managed by PCI subsystem and DIMM devices are managed by board where they are mapped into reserved address space by board code that owns it.
Allowing random device to manage board resources directly isn't really acceptable (even as temporary solution).
I agree to "random" devices. This should not be the design principle.
Quoted 6 lines
In case of virtio-pmem it might be much cleaner to use mapping mechanism provided by PCI sybsytem than trying to bridge bus and buss-less device wiring as from device modeling point of view (aside from providing RAM to guest) it's 2 quite different devices.
And again: Please don't forget virtio-ccw. We _don't_ want to glue virtio device specifics to the underlying proxy here.
Quoted 18 lines
i.e. if you think new device is RAM, which is governed by -m option, then model it as bus-less device like dimm and plug it directly into board, if its plugged in to a bus it's that bus owner responsibility to allocate/manage address space or bridge it to parent device.
(btw: virtio-pmem looks sort of like ivshmem, maybe they can share some code on qemu side)
Quoted 8 lines
Of course, we could also take care of pre-plug things as you mentioned.
Quoted 5 lines
container
MachineState::device_memoryis owned by machine and it's up to machine plug handler (container's owner) to map device's mr into its address space.
(i.e. nor device's realize nor PCI bus hotplug handler should do it)
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 1 line
I agree, but I think these are internal details.
it's internal details that we choose not to violate in QEMU and were working towards that direction, getting rid of places that do it wrongly.
Yes, and I'll try my best to avoid it.
Quoted 12 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Not sure about virtio-mem but if it would use
device_memorycontainer, it should use machine's plug handler.Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 3 lines
I don't have out head ideas how to glue it cleanly, may be
MachineState::device_memoryis just not right thing to use for such devices.I strongly disagree. From the user point of view it should not matter what was added/plugged. There is just one guest physical memory and maxmem is defined for one QEMU instance. Exposing such details to the user should definitely be avoided.
Quoted 5 lines
qemu user have to be exposed to details as he already adds
-device virtio-pmem,....
to CLI, maxmem accounting is a separate matter and probably shouldn't be mixed with device model and how it's mapped into guest's address space.
I can't follow. Please step back and have a look at how it works on the qemu command line:
1. You specify a maxmem option
2. You plug DIMM/NVDIMM/virtio-mem/virtio-pmem
Some machines (e.g. s390x) use maxmem to setup the maximum possible guest address space in KVM.
Just because DIMM/NVDIMM was the first user does not mean that it is the only valid user. That is also the reason why it is named "query-memory-devices" and not "query-dimm-devices". The abstraction is there for a reason.
Signature · 3 lines
Thanks, David / dhildenb
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 5 lines
So this happens before any hotplug handler is called. Everything works just fine. What you don't like about this is the
qdev_get_machine(). I also don't like it but in the short term I don't see any problem with it. It is resource allocation and not a "device plug" in the typical form.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 2 lines
It's not
qdev_get_machine()that's issue, it's layer violation, where child device is allocating and mapping resources of one of its parents.Quite simple: introduce a function at the machine where the child can "request" to get an address and "request" to plug/unplug a region.
Or what would be wrong about that?
To extend on such an idea (looking at virtio_bus_device_plugged() getting called from virtio realize functions)
Make the machine implement some new interface "MemoryDeviceManager".
Quoted 1 line
From virtio-mem/pmem realize, call a function like
memory_device_plugged().
Lookup the machine (qdev_get_machine() or walk all the way up until we find one that implements MemoryDeviceManager) and call pre_plugged/plugged/unplugged.
We could hide that in a new device class TYPE_VIRTIO_MEMORY_DEVICE.
Opinions? Completely nonsense? :) Alternatives?
Signature · 3 lines
Thanks, David / dhildenb