On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 01:28:58PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 30.05.25 13:18, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 11:26:05AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > On 14.05.25 11:12, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 13 May 2025 15:12:11 +0200
> > > > David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 13.05.25 14:13, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, 3 Mar 2025 13:02:17 -0500
> > > > > > yuanminghao <yuanm...@chinatelecom.cn> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Global used_memslots or used_shared_memslots is updated to 0
> > > > > > > > > unexpectly
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > it shouldn't be 0 in practice, as it comes from number of RAM
> > > > > > > > regions VM has.
> > > > > > > > It's likely a bug somewhere else.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I haven't touched this code for a long time, but I'd say if we
> > > > > > consider multiple
> > > > > > devices, we shouldn't do following:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > static void vhost_commit(MemoryListener *listener)
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > if (dev->vhost_ops->vhost_backend_no_private_memslots &&
> > > > > > dev->vhost_ops->vhost_backend_no_private_memslots(dev)) {
> > > > > > used_shared_memslots = dev->mem->nregions;
> > > > > > } else {
> > > > > > used_memslots = dev->mem->nregions;
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > where value dev->mem->nregions gets is well hidden/obscured
> > > > > > and hard to trace where tail ends => fragile.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > CCing David (accidental victim) who rewrote this part the last time,
> > > > > > perhaps he can suggest a better way to fix the issue.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think the original idea is that all devices (of on type: private vs.
> > > > > non-private memslots) have the same number of memslots.
> > > > >
> > > > > This avoids having to loop over all devices to figure out the number
> > > > > of
> > > > > memslots.
> > > > >
> > > > > ... but in vhost_get_free_memslots() we already loop over all devices.
> > > > >
> > > > > The check in vhost_dev_init() needs to be taken care of.
> > > > >
> > > > > So maybe we can get rid of both variables completely?
> > > >
> > > > looks reasonable to me, (instead of current state which is
> > > > juggling with dev->mem->nregions that can become 0 on unplug
> > > > as it was reported).
> > > >
> > > > David,
> > > > do you have time to fix it?
> > >
> > > I can try, but I was wondering/hoping whether Yuanminghao could take a
> > > look
> > > at that? I can provide guidance if necessary.
> >
> >
> > Guys?
>
> Is the original author not interested in fixing the problem?
Given the silence I'd guess no.
> --
> Cheers,
>
> David / dhildenb
