On Tue, 29 May 2018 18:02:06 +0200
David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 29.05.2018 15:27, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 May 2018 10:15:14 +0200
> > David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The start of the address space does not have to be aligned for the
> >> search. Handle this case explicitly when starting the search for a new
> >> address.
> > That's true,
> > but commit message doesn't explain why address_space_start
> > should be allowed to be non aligned.
> >
> > At least with this assert we would notice early that
> > board allocating misaligned address space.
> > I'd keep the assert unless there is a good reason to drop it.
>
> That reason might be that I can easily crash QEMU
>
> ./x86_64-softmmu/qemu-system-x86_64 -m 256M,maxmem=20G,slots=2 -object
> memory-backend-file,id=mem0,size=8192M,mem-path=/dev/zero,align=8192M
> -device pc-dimm,id=dimm1,memdev=mem0
>
> ERROR:hw/mem/memory-device.c:146:memory_device_get_free_addr: assertion
> failed: (QEMU_ALIGN_UP(address_space_start, align) == address_space_start)
it looks like a different issue.
As I remember user visible 'align' property was added as duct tape since
we can't figure out alignment for DAX device no the host,
so it was left upto upper layers to magically figure that out.
However we probably shouldn't allow arbitrary or bigger aligment
than max page size supported by target machine/cpu
(i.e. currently hardcoded address_space_start alignment),
as it creates unnecessary fragmentation and not counted in size
of hotplug region (for x86 we count in additional 1Gb per memory device).
How about turning that assert into error check that
inhibits plugging in devices with alignment values
larger than address_space_start alignment?
> >
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com>
> >> ---
> >> hw/mem/memory-device.c | 3 +--
> >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/hw/mem/memory-device.c b/hw/mem/memory-device.c
> >> index 3e04f3954e..361d38bfc5 100644
> >> --- a/hw/mem/memory-device.c
> >> +++ b/hw/mem/memory-device.c
> >> @@ -116,7 +116,6 @@ uint64_t memory_device_get_free_addr(MachineState *ms,
> >> const uint64_t *hint,
> >> address_space_start = ms->device_memory->base;
> >> address_space_end = address_space_start +
> >> memory_region_size(&ms->device_memory->mr);
> >> - g_assert(QEMU_ALIGN_UP(address_space_start, align) ==
> >> address_space_start);
> >> g_assert(address_space_end >= address_space_start);
> >>
> >> memory_device_check_addable(ms, size, errp);
> >> @@ -149,7 +148,7 @@ uint64_t memory_device_get_free_addr(MachineState *ms,
> >> const uint64_t *hint,
> >> return 0;
> >> }
> >> } else {
> >> - new_addr = address_space_start;
> >> + new_addr = QEMU_ALIGN_UP(address_space_start, align);
> >> }
> >>
> >> /* find address range that will fit new memory device */
> >
>
>
