Hi
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 5:21 PM, John Ferlan <jferlan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>> diff --git a/tests/qemuxml2argvtest.c b/tests/qemuxml2argvtest.c
>>>> index 35df63b2ac..76008a8d07 100644
>>>> --- a/tests/qemuxml2argvtest.c
>>>> +++ b/tests/qemuxml2argvtest.c
>>>> @@ -2928,6 +2928,11 @@ mymain(void)
>>>> DO_TEST("fd-memory-no-numa-topology", QEMU_CAPS_OBJECT_MEMORY_FILE,
>>>> QEMU_CAPS_KVM);
>>>>
>>>> + DO_TEST("memfd-memory-numa",
>>>> + QEMU_CAPS_OBJECT_MEMORY_MEMFD,
>>>> + QEMU_CAPS_OBJECT_MEMORY_MEMFD_HUGETLB,
>>>> + QEMU_CAPS_KVM);
>>>> +
>>>
>>> Theoretically, if we have 3.1 capabilties to test against, then this
>>> would use a DO_TEST_CAPS_LATEST, while a "pre-3.1" would still be using
>>> -ramfd, right? That is, using DO_TEST_CAPS_VER w/ "3.0.0" would
>>> generate different results.
>>>
>>> I'm conflicted if we should wait for someone to generate the 3.1 caps or
>>> not. For whatever reason, when I post them they're not quite right for
>>> someone else's tastes...
>>>
>>> Let's see if anyone else has strong feelings one way or another.
>>>
>>
>> -memfd is available since 2.12. After patch 1 & 2 are applied, we
>> should probably switch to use DO_TEST_CAPS_LATEST.
>>
>
> Theoretically patches 3, 4, and 5 could be one patch, but having
> separate also works well for review purposes!
>
> While MEMFD is there is the HUGETLB and comment in page 2 about QEMU 3.1
> that is what I was concerned with, especially since 2.12 and 3.0 find
> the value...
>
> Looking at the QEMU sources, I see you added the field in commit
> dbb9e0f40, which is 2.12 based.
It's added in 2.12:
git describe --contains --match=v2* dbb9e0f40
v2.12.0-rc0~107^2~8
However, only with upcoming patch for 3.1 (queued by Paolo today) will
the hugetlb properties be run-time checked/exposed.
> Still reading deeper into the comments in patch 2, it just seems that
> @hugetlbsize has some sort run-time issue that gets fixed by 3.1. Harder
It's not an issue, but it will help libvirt to figure out before
starting qemu if anonymous memfd hugetlb is supported.
> for libvirt to detect that an issue exists unless something was added in
> 3.1 that libvirt could test on for a capability. I'm not sure what the
> issue is, but maybe that's something document-able at least with respect
> to what values are provided in the XML for memoryBacking.
If you request anonymous memory & hugetlb today, you have a libvirt
error. With the series, if the host/qemu doesn't support it, you will
get an error.
https://libvirt.org/formatdomain.html#elementsMemoryBacking
There is no documentation about the file memory backing requirement
today (it seems). We could explain it and add that a
memfd-hugetlb-capable doesn't need it (when there is no numa
assignment). Is this what you are asking?
>
>
> John
>
>> Before 2.12 (or if the capabilities are not exposed by the host qemu)
>> the argv will use -file. This is already covered by existing tests,
>> like hugepages-shared.
>>
>> thanks
>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>> DO_TEST("cpu-check-none", QEMU_CAPS_KVM);
>>>> DO_TEST("cpu-check-partial", QEMU_CAPS_KVM);
>>>> DO_TEST("cpu-check-full", QEMU_CAPS_KVM);
>>>>
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
