On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 03:36:55PM -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 07:12:45PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 03:01:36PM -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 06:59:07PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 02:57:39PM -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 06:48:54PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 02:31:32PM -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 04:24:30PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > The full fix would be to allow QEMU to map a list of > > > > > > > > pages to a guest supplied IOVA. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, that's what I expected. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > While this is not possible, the only requests I have for this > > > > > > > patch is that we clearly document: > > > > > > > * What's the only purpose of share=on on a host-memory-backend > > > > > > > object (due to pvrdma limitations). > > > > > > > * The potential undesirable side-effects of setting share=on. > > > > > > > * On the commit message and other comments, clearly distinguish > > > > > > > HVAs in the QEMU address-space from IOVAs, to avoid confusion. > > > > > > > > > > > > Looking forward, when we do support it, how will management find out > > > > > > it no longer needs to pass the share parameter? > > > > > > > > > > > > Further, if the side effects of the share parameter go away, > > > > > > how will it know these no longer hold? > > > > > > > > > > A query-host-capabilities or similar QMP command seems necessary > > > > > for that. > > > > > > > > Is anyone working on that? > > > > > > Not yet. > > > > > > -- > > > Eduardo > > > > Do these patches need to wait until we do have that command? > > I don't think so. The command will be needed only when > support for pvrdma without share=on gets implemented. > > Right now, all we need is clear documentation. > > > > > I'm thinking it's better to have "share=on required with rdma" > > and "hugetlbfs not supported with rdma" > > than the reverse, this way new hosts do not need to carry > > thus stuff around forever. > > What do you mean by "the reverse"? > > IIUC, the requirements/limitations are: > > * share=on required for pvrdma. Already documented and enforced > by pvrdma code in this series. > * hugetlbfs not supported with rdma. Is this detected/reported by > QEMU? Is it documented?
Probably should be. > * side-effects of share=on. This is not detected nor documented, > and probably already applies to other memory backends. > * Nice to have: document when share=on is useful (answer: > because of pvrdma), when adding share=on support to > host-memory-backend. > > > > > Also, how does management know which devices are affected? > > Right now? By reading documentation. > -- > Eduardo