On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 10:41:41 +0100
David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 16.03.22 10:37, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > * Peter Maydell (peter.mayd...@linaro.org) wrote:
> >> On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 at 07:53, David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 16.03.22 05:04, Andrew Deason wrote:
> >>>> We have a thin wrapper around madvise, called qemu_madvise, which
> >>>> provides consistent behavior for the !CONFIG_MADVISE case, and works
> >>>> around some platform-specific quirks (some platforms only provide
> >>>> posix_madvise, and some don't offer all 'advise' types). This specific
> >>>> caller of madvise has never used it, tracing back to its original
> >>>> introduction in commit e0b266f01dd2 ("migration_completion: Take
> >>>> current state").
> >>>>
> >>>> Call qemu_madvise here, to follow the same logic as all of our other
> >>>> madvise callers. This slightly changes the behavior for
> >>>> !CONFIG_MADVISE (EINVAL instead of ENOSYS, and a slightly different
> >>>> error message), but this is now more consistent with other callers
> >>>> that use qemu_madvise.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Deason <adea...@sinenomine.net>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> Looking at the history of commits that touch this madvise() call, it
> >>>> doesn't _look_ like there's any reason to be directly calling madvise vs
> >>>> qemu_advise (I don't see anything mentioned), but I'm not sure.
> >>>>
> >>>> softmmu/physmem.c | 12 ++----------
> >>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/softmmu/physmem.c b/softmmu/physmem.c
> >>>> index 43ae70fbe2..900c692b5e 100644
> >>>> --- a/softmmu/physmem.c
> >>>> +++ b/softmmu/physmem.c
> >>>> @@ -3584,40 +3584,32 @@ int ram_block_discard_range(RAMBlock *rb,
> >>>> uint64_t start, size_t length)
> >>>> rb->idstr, start, length, ret);
> >>>> goto err;
> >>>> #endif
> >>>> }
> >>>> if (need_madvise) {
> >>>> /* For normal RAM this causes it to be unmapped,
> >>>> * for shared memory it causes the local mapping to
> >>>> disappear
> >>>> * and to fall back on the file contents (which we just
> >>>> * fallocate'd away).
> >>>> */
> >>>> -#if defined(CONFIG_MADVISE)
> >>>> if (qemu_ram_is_shared(rb) && rb->fd < 0) {
> >>>> - ret = madvise(host_startaddr, length, QEMU_MADV_REMOVE);
> >>>> + ret = qemu_madvise(host_startaddr, length,
> >>>> QEMU_MADV_REMOVE);
> >>>> } else {
> >>>> - ret = madvise(host_startaddr, length,
> >>>> QEMU_MADV_DONTNEED);
> >>>> + ret = qemu_madvise(host_startaddr, length,
> >>>> QEMU_MADV_DONTNEED);
> >>>
> >>> posix_madvise(QEMU_MADV_DONTNEED) has completely different semantics
> >>> then madvise() -- it's not a discard that we need here.
> >>>
> >>> So ram_block_discard_range() would now succeed in environments (BSD?)
> >>> where it's supposed to fail.
> >>>
> >>> So AFAIKs this isn't sane.
> >>
> >> But CONFIG_MADVISE just means "host has madvise()"; it doesn't imply
> >> "this is a Linux madvise() with MADV_DONTNEED". Solaris madvise()
> >> doesn't seem to have MADV_DONTNEED at all; a quick look at the
> >> FreeBSD manpage suggests its madvise MADV_DONTNEED is identical
> >> to its posix_madvise MADV_DONTNEED.
> >>
> >> If we need "specifically Linux MADV_DONTNEED semantics" maybe we
> >> should define a QEMU_MADV_LINUX_DONTNEED which either (a) does the
> >> right thing or (b) fails, and use qemu_madvise() regardless.
> >>
> >> Certainly the current code is pretty fragile to being changed by
> >> people who don't understand the undocumented subtlety behind
> >> the use of a direct madvise() call here.
> >
> > Yeh and I'm not sure I can remembe rall the subtleties; there's a big
> > hairy set of ifdef's in include/qemu/madvise.h that makes
> > sure we always have the definition of QEMU_MADV_REMOVE/DONTNEED
> > even on platforms that might not define it themselves.
> >
> > But I think this code is used for things with different degrees
> > of care about the semantics; e.g. 'balloon' just cares that
> > it frees memory up and doesn't care about the detailed semantics
> > that much; so it's probably fine with that.
> > Postcopy is much more touchy, but then it's only going to be
> > calling this on Linux anyway (because of the userfault dependency).
>
> MADV_DONTNEED/MADV_REMOVE only provides discard semantics on Linux IIRC
> -- and that's what we want to achieve: ram_block_discard_range()
>
> So I agree with Peter that we might want to make this more explicit.
I was looking at the comments/history around this code to try to make
this more explicit/clear, and it seems like the whole function is very
Linux-specific. All we ever do is:
- fallocate(FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE | FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE)
- madvise(MADV_REMOVE)
- madvise(MADV_DONTNEED) with Linux semantics
All of those operations are Linux-only, so trying to figure out the
cross-platform way to model this seems kind of pointless. Is it fine to
just #ifdef the whole thing to be just for Linux?
--
Andrew Deason
adea...@sinenomine.net
