On 12/16/24 12:29 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 16.12.24 18:26, Matthew Rosato wrote: >> >>>> Good point. Using s390_get_memory_limit() sounds good to me; That will >>>> make v3 of this series dependent on the s390x virtio-mem series but sounds >>>> like you're sending that sometime this week anyway. >>> >>> If my testing is good and there are no further comments, I'll queue it >>> directly (no change to v2) to send it upstream. >>> >>> So it's probably a good idea to wait with a new series her. >>> >> >> OK >> >>> >>> We discussed at some point maybe requiring disabling uncoordinated >>> discarding of RAM (virtio-balloon), is that already done implicitly now? >>> >> >> Yes, this should be handled via the call to >> ram_block_uncoordinated_discard_disable() in >> vfio_ram_block_discard_disable() - I just traced that now to double-check. >> > > Cool, can you briefly mention that in the patch description? Thanks! >
Sure, I'll add something like Pinning for the direct mapping case is handled via vfio and its memory listener. Additionally, ram discard settings are inherited from vfio: coordinated discards (e.g. virtio-mem) are allowed while uncoordinated discards (e.g. virtio-balloon) are disabled.
