On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 13:15:52 +0200
Christian Borntraeger <borntrae...@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> Am 24.09.24 um 22:17 schrieb David Hildenbrand:
> > On 24.09.24 18:22, Nina Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2024-09-10 at 19:58 +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >>> We actually want to check the available RAM, not the maximum RAM size.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com>
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Nina Schoetterl-Glausch <n...@linux.ibm.com>
> >> Nit below.
> >>> ---
> >>> target/s390x/kvm/pv.c | 2 +-
> >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/target/s390x/kvm/pv.c b/target/s390x/kvm/pv.c
> >>> index dde836d21a..424cce75ca 100644
> >>> --- a/target/s390x/kvm/pv.c
> >>> +++ b/target/s390x/kvm/pv.c
> >>> @@ -133,7 +133,7 @@ bool s390_pv_vm_try_disable_async(S390CcwMachineState
> >>> *ms)
> >>> * If the feature is not present or if the VM is not larger than 2
> >>> GiB,
> >>> * KVM_PV_ASYNC_CLEANUP_PREPARE fill fail; no point in attempting
> >>> it.
> >>> */
> >>> - if ((MACHINE(ms)->maxram_size <= 2 * GiB) ||
> >>> + if ((MACHINE(ms)->ram_size <= 2 * GiB) ||
> >>> !kvm_check_extension(kvm_state,
> >>> KVM_CAP_S390_PROTECTED_ASYNC_DISABLE)) {
> >>> return false;
> >>> }
> >>
> >> If I understood the kernel code right, the decision is made wrt
> >> the size of the gmap address space, which is the same as the
> >> limit set for the VM. So using s390_get_memory_limit would be
> >> semantically cleaner.
> >
> > I wonder if we should just drop the RAM size check. Not convinced the
> > slightly faster reboot for such small VMs is really relevant? Makes the
> > code more complicated than really necessary.
>
> IIRC there have been functional issues with small guests and asnyc. Claudio,
> do you remember?
if we are <2G, KVM allocates a segment table as the highest level table
for the gmap ASCE. there are pointers lurking around in the reverse
mapping prefix_tree, which point directly into segment tables.
if the ASCE is region3 or higher, that's not an issue. if it's a
segment table, then it's an issue, because those pointers will end up
pointing into freed memory, once the old asce is freed.
in short, we have to guarantee that we will never set aside a gmap ASCE
if it is a segment table.
