On Wed, 7 Feb 2018 07:49:58 +0000 "Tan, Jianfeng" <jianfeng....@intel.com> wrote:
> > -----Original Message----- > > From: Paolo Bonzini [mailto:pbonz...@redhat.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 1:32 AM > > To: Igor Mammedov > > Cc: Tan, Jianfeng; qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Jason Wang; Maxime Coquelin; > > Michael S . Tsirkin > > Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] exec: eliminate ram naming issue as > > migration > > > > On 05/02/2018 18:15, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Then we would have both ram block named pc.ram: > > >>> Block Name PSize > > >>> pc.ram 4 KiB > > >>> /objects/pc.ram 2 MiB > > >>> > > >>> But I assume it's a corner case which not really happen. > > >> Yeah, you're right. :/ I hadn't thought of hotplug. It can happen > > >> indeed. > > > > > > perhaps we should fail object_add memory-backend-foo if it resulted > > > in creating ramblock with duplicate id > > > > Note that it would only be duplicated with Jianfeng's patch. So I'm > > worried that his patch is worse than what we have now, because it may > > create conflicts with system RAMBlock names are not necessarily > > predictable. Right now, -object creates RAMBlock names that are nicely > > constrained within /object/. > > So we are trading off between the benefit it takes and the bad effect it > brings. > > I'm wondering if the above example is the only failed case this patch leads > to, i.e, only there is a ram named "pc.ram" and "/object/pc.ram" in the src > VM? > > Please also consider the second option, that adding an alias name for > RAMBlock; I'm not a big fan for that one, as it just pushes the problem to > OpenStack/Libvirt. looking at provided CLI examples it's configuration issue on src and dst, one shall not mix numa and non numa variants. > Or any other suggestions? Fix configuration, namely dst side of it (i.e. use the same -m only variant without -numa as it's on src). BTW, what are you trying to achieve adding -numa on dst? > Thanks, > Jianfeng
