On 15.11.23 08:14, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
Commit d3a5038c461 ("exec: ram_block_discard_range") introduced
ram_block_discard_range() which grabs some code from
ram_discard_range(). However, during code movement, it changed alignment
check of host_startaddr from qemu_host_page_size to rb->page_size.
When ramblock is back'ed by hugepage, it requires the startaddr to be
huge page size aligned, which is a overkill. e.g., TDX's private-shared
page conversion is done at 4KB granularity. Shared page is discarded
when it gets converts to private and when shared page back'ed by
hugepage it is going to fail on this check.
So change to alignment check back to qemu_host_page_size.
Signed-off-by: Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@xxxxxxxxx>
---
Changes in v3:
- Newly added in v3;
---
system/physmem.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/system/physmem.c b/system/physmem.c
index c56b17e44df6..8a4e42c7cf60 100644
--- a/system/physmem.c
+++ b/system/physmem.c
@@ -3532,7 +3532,7 @@ int ram_block_discard_range(RAMBlock *rb, uint64_t start, size_t length)
uint8_t *host_startaddr = rb->host + start;
- if (!QEMU_PTR_IS_ALIGNED(host_startaddr, rb->page_size)) {
+ if (!QEMU_PTR_IS_ALIGNED(host_startaddr, qemu_host_page_size)) {
For your use cases, rb->page_size should always match qemu_host_page_size.
IIRC, we only set rb->page_size to different values for hugetlb. And
guest_memfd does not support hugetlb.
Even if QEMU is using THP, rb->page_size should 4k.
Please elaborate how you can actually trigger that. From what I recall,
guest_memfd is not compatible with hugetlb.
And the check here makes perfect sense for existing callers of
ram_block_discard_range(): you cannot partially zap a hugetlb page.
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
