[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-block] [PATCH] block, migration: Use qemu_madvise
From: |
Dr. David Alan Gilbert |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-block] [PATCH] block, migration: Use qemu_madvise inplace of madvise |
Date: |
Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:36:03 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.7.1 (2016-10-04) |
* Pankaj Gupta (address@hidden) wrote:
>
> Thanks for your comments. I have below query.
> >
> > On Fri 17 Feb 2017 09:06:04 AM CET, Pankaj Gupta wrote:
> > > To maintain consistency at all the places use qemu_madvise wrapper
> > > inplace of madvise call.
> >
> > > if (length > 0) {
> > > - madvise((uint8_t *) t + offset, length, MADV_DONTNEED);
> > > + qemu_madvise((uint8_t *) t + offset, length, QEMU_MADV_DONTNEED);
> >
> > This was changed two months ago from qemu_madvise() to madvise(), is
> > there any reason why you want to revert that change? Those two calls are
> > not equivalent, please see commit 2f2c8d6b371cfc6689affb0b7e for an
> > explanation.
> >
> > > - if (madvise(start, length, MADV_DONTNEED)) {
> > > + if (qemu_madvise(start, length, QEMU_MADV_DONTNEED)) {
> > > error_report("%s MADV_DONTNEED: %s", __func__, strerror(errno));
>
> I checked history of only change related to 'postcopy'.
>
> For my linux machine:
>
> ./config-host.mak
>
> CONFIG_MADVISE=y
> CONFIG_POSIX_MADVISE=y
>
> As both these options are set for Linux, every time we call call
> 'qemu_madvise' ==>"madvise(addr, len, advice);" will
> be compiled/called. I don't understand why '2f2c8d6b371cfc6689affb0b7e'
> explicitly changed for :"#ifdef CONFIG_LINUX"
> I think its better to write generic function maybe in a wrapper then to
> conditionally set something at different places.
No; the problem is that the behaviours are different.
You're right that the current build on Linux defines MADVISE and thus we are
safe because qemu_madvise
takes teh CONFIG_MADVISE/madvise route - but we need to be explicit that it's
only
the madvise() route that's safe, not any of the calls implemented by
qemu_madvise, because if in the future someone was to rearrange qemu_madvise
to prefer posix_madvise postcopy would break in a very subtle way.
IMHO it might even be better to remove the definition of QEMU_MADV_DONTNEED
altogether
and make a name that wasn't ambiguous between the two, since the posix
definition is
so different.
Dave
> int qemu_madvise(void *addr, size_t len, int advice)
> {
> if (advice == QEMU_MADV_INVALID) {
> errno = EINVAL;
> return -1;
> }
> #if defined(CONFIG_MADVISE)
> return madvise(addr, len, advice);
> #elif defined(CONFIG_POSIX_MADVISE)
> return posix_madvise(addr, len, advice);
> #else
> errno = EINVAL;
> return -1;
> #endif
> }
>
> >
> > And this is the same case.
> >
> > Berto
> >
--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / address@hidden / Manchester, UK
- [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] block, migration: Use qemu_madvise inplace of madvise, Pankaj Gupta, 2017/02/17
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] block, migration: Use qemu_madvise inplace of madvise, Kevin Wolf, 2017/02/17
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-block] [PATCH] block, migration: Use qemu_madvise inplace of madvise, Alberto Garcia, 2017/02/17
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-block] [PATCH] block, migration: Use qemu_madvise inplace of madvise, Pankaj Gupta, 2017/02/17
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-block] [PATCH] block, migration: Use qemu_madvise inplace of madvise,
Dr. David Alan Gilbert <=
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-block] [PATCH] block, migration: Use qemu_madvise inplace of madvise, Pankaj Gupta, 2017/02/17
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-block] [PATCH] block, migration: Use qemu_madvise inplace of madvise, Alberto Garcia, 2017/02/17
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-block] [PATCH] block, migration: Use qemu_madvise inplace of madvise, Alberto Garcia, 2017/02/17