On 03/01/2018 12:45 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> * Christian Borntraeger (borntrae...@de.ibm.com) wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 03/01/2018 10:24 AM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
>>> * Thomas Huth (th...@redhat.com) wrote:
>>>> On 28.02.2018 20:53, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>>>> When a guests reboots with diagnose 308 subcode 3 it requests the memory
>>>>> to be cleared. We did not do it so far. This does not only violate the
>>>>> architecture, it also misses the chance to free up that memory on
>>>>> reboot, which would help on host memory over commitment. By using
>>>>> ram_block_discard_range we can cover both cases.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds like a good idea. I wonder whether that release_all_ram()
>>>> function should maybe rather reside in exec.c, so that other machines
>>>> that want to clear all RAM at reset time can use it, too?
>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntrae...@de.ibm.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> target/s390x/kvm.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
>>>>> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/target/s390x/kvm.c b/target/s390x/kvm.c
>>>>> index 8f3a422288..2e145ad5c3 100644
>>>>> --- a/target/s390x/kvm.c
>>>>> +++ b/target/s390x/kvm.c
>>>>> @@ -34,6 +34,8 @@
>>>>> #include "qapi/error.h"
>>>>> #include "qemu/error-report.h"
>>>>> #include "qemu/timer.h"
>>>>> +#include "qemu/rcu_queue.h"
>>>>> +#include "sysemu/cpus.h"
>>>>> #include "sysemu/sysemu.h"
>>>>> #include "sysemu/hw_accel.h"
>>>>> #include "hw/boards.h"
>>>>> @@ -41,6 +43,7 @@
>>>>> #include "sysemu/device_tree.h"
>>>>> #include "exec/gdbstub.h"
>>>>> #include "exec/address-spaces.h"
>>>>> +#include "exec/ram_addr.h"
>>>>> #include "trace.h"
>>>>> #include "qapi-event.h"
>>>>> #include "hw/s390x/s390-pci-inst.h"
>>>>> @@ -1841,6 +1844,14 @@ static int kvm_arch_handle_debug_exit(S390CPU *cpu)
>>>>> return ret;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> +static void release_all_rams(void)
>>>>
>>>> s/rams/ram/ maybe?
>>>>
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct RAMBlock *rb;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + QLIST_FOREACH_RCU(rb, &ram_list.blocks, next)
>>>>> + ram_block_discard_range(rb, 0, rb->used_length);
>>>>
>>>> From a coding style point of view, I think there should be curly braces
>>>> around ram_block_discard_range() ?
>>>
>>> I think this might break if it happens during a postcopy migrate.
>>> The destination CPU is running, so it can do a reboot at just the wrong
>>> time; and then the pages (that are protected by userfaultfd) would get
>>> deallocated and trigger userfaultfd requests if accessed.
>>
>> Yes, userfaultd/postcopy is really fragile and relies on things that are not
>> necessarily true (e.g. virito-balloon can also invalidate pages).
>
> That's why we use qemu_balloon_inhibit around postcopy to stop
> ballooning; I'm not aware of anything else that does the same.
we also have at least the pte_unused thing in mm/rmap.c that clearly
predates userfaultfd. We might need to look into this as well....
>
>> The right thing here would be to actually terminate the postcopy migrate but
>> return it as "successful" (since we are going to clear that RAM anyway). Do
>> you see a good way to achieve that?
>
> There's no current mechanism to do it; I think it would have to involve
> some interaction with the source as well though to tell it that you
> didn't need that area of RAM anyway.
>
> However, there are more problems:
> a) Even forgetting the userfault problem, this is racy since during
> postcopy you're still receiving blocks from the source at the same time;
> so some of the area that you've discarded might get overwritten by data
> from the source.
So how do you handle the case when the target system writes to memory
that is still in flight? Can we build on that mechanism?
>
> b) Your release_all_rams seems to do all RAM Blocks - won't that nuke
> any ROMs as well? Or maybe even flash?
ROMs loaded with load_elf (like our s390-ccw.img) are reloaded on every reset.
See rom_reset in /hw/core/loader.c
Is this different with the x86 bios?
>
> c) In a normal precopy migration, I think you may also get old data;
> Paolo said that an MADV_DONTNEED won't cause the dirty flags to be set,
> so if the migrate has already sent the data for a page, and then this
> happens, before the CPUs are stopped during the migration, when you
> restart on the destination you'll have the old data.
Yes, looks like we might get non-cleared data. Could we maybe combine fixing
and optimizing: we can stop tranmitting the memory and do a clean
startup on the target side. In other words could we actually use the
reset clear trigger to speed up migration?
>
> Dave
>
>>
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> int kvm_arch_handle_exit(CPUState *cs, struct kvm_run *run)
>>>>> {
>>>>> S390CPU *cpu = S390_CPU(cs);
>>>>> @@ -1853,6 +1864,14 @@ int kvm_arch_handle_exit(CPUState *cs, struct
>>>>> kvm_run *run)
>>>>> ret = handle_intercept(cpu);
>>>>> break;
>>>>> case KVM_EXIT_S390_RESET:
>>>>> + if (run->s390_reset_flags & KVM_S390_RESET_CLEAR) {
>>>>> + /*
>>>>> + * We will stop other CPUs anyway, avoid spurious
>>>>> crashes and
>>>>> + * get all CPUs out. The reset will take care of the
>>>>> resume.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> + pause_all_vcpus();
>>>>> + release_all_rams();
>>>>> + }
>>>>> s390_reipl_request();
>>>>> break;
>>>>> case KVM_EXIT_S390_TSCH:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Apart from the cosmetic nits, patch looks good to me.
>>>>
>>>> Thomas
>>> --
>>> Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
>>>
>>
> --
> Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
>
