Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] qemu: Don't use -mem-prealloc among with .prealloc=yes
On 11/29/18 9:58 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote: > On 11/5/18 3:49 PM, Michal Privoznik wrote: >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1624223 >> >> There are two ways to request memory preallocation on cmd line: >> -mem-prealloc and .prealloc attribute to memory-backend-file. >> However, as it turns out it's not safe to use both at the same >> time. Prefer -mem-prealloc as it is more backward compatible >> compared to switching to "-numa node,memdev= + -object >> memory-backend-file". >> >> Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik >> --- >> src/qemu/qemu_command.c | 37 +-- >> src/qemu/qemu_command.h | 1 + >> src/qemu/qemu_domain.c| 2 + >> src/qemu/qemu_domain.h| 3 ++ >> src/qemu/qemu_hotplug.c | 3 +- >> .../hugepages-numa-default-dimm.args | 2 +- >> 6 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > Ping? > Sorry, the faster I pedal the bicycle the further I get behind the train :-). Still is what you're asking "is the patch in it's current form OK" - in general, I think so, although given what you've learned and comments already provided - can you update and repost just for completeness... Tks John > After some discussion with QEMU devels, I found out that this might be > harmful/suboptimal. Thing is, if -mem-prealloc is used then qemu will > fully allocate the memory (this is done by actually touching every page > that has been allocated). Then, if .prealloc=yes is specified, > mbind(flags = MPOL_MF_STRICT | MPOL_MF_MOVE) is called which: > > a) has to (possibly) move the memory to a different NUMA node, > b) can have no effect when hugepages are in play (thus ignoring user > request to place memory on desired NUMA nodes). > > While I could live with a), I couldn't with b). The patch is still valid. > > Michal > > -- > libvir-list mailing list > libvir-list@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list > -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] qemu: Don't use -mem-prealloc among with .prealloc=yes
On 11/5/18 3:49 PM, Michal Privoznik wrote: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1624223 > > There are two ways to request memory preallocation on cmd line: > -mem-prealloc and .prealloc attribute to memory-backend-file. > However, as it turns out it's not safe to use both at the same > time. Prefer -mem-prealloc as it is more backward compatible > compared to switching to "-numa node,memdev= + -object > memory-backend-file". > > Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik > --- > src/qemu/qemu_command.c | 37 +-- > src/qemu/qemu_command.h | 1 + > src/qemu/qemu_domain.c| 2 + > src/qemu/qemu_domain.h| 3 ++ > src/qemu/qemu_hotplug.c | 3 +- > .../hugepages-numa-default-dimm.args | 2 +- > 6 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) Ping? After some discussion with QEMU devels, I found out that this might be harmful/suboptimal. Thing is, if -mem-prealloc is used then qemu will fully allocate the memory (this is done by actually touching every page that has been allocated). Then, if .prealloc=yes is specified, mbind(flags = MPOL_MF_STRICT | MPOL_MF_MOVE) is called which: a) has to (possibly) move the memory to a different NUMA node, b) can have no effect when hugepages are in play (thus ignoring user request to place memory on desired NUMA nodes). While I could live with a), I couldn't with b). The patch is still valid. Michal -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] qemu: Don't use -mem-prealloc among with .prealloc=yes
On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 10:47:01AM +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote:
On 11/07/2018 12:43 AM, John Ferlan wrote:
On 11/5/18 9:49 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1624223
There are two ways to request memory preallocation on cmd line:
-mem-prealloc and .prealloc attribute to memory-backend-file.
s/to/for a/ ?
However, as it turns out it's not safe to use both at the same
time. Prefer -mem-prealloc as it is more backward compatible
compared to switching to "-numa node,memdev= + -object
memory-backend-file".
FWIW: Issue introduced by commit 1c4f3b56..
While I understand the reasoning, it's really too bad we couldn't "move"
the determination over which conflicting qualifier is used to earlier.
By the time we call the -numa backend we would already have had to make
the choice if I'm reading the ordering right.
Correct, you're reading it right.
But if it doesn't matter for the -numa object to use the -mem-prealloc,
then who am I to complain. Of course the "future thinking" me that is
living in the present issues surrounding machine and pc makes me wonder
if choosing this as the default going forward into the future where
someone could deprecate the -mem-prealloc because -numa will be so
prevelant won't bite us down the road.
If -mem-prealloc is deprecated then we would have to construct -object
memory-backend-file. I'm not against this, but IIRC this fails during
migration. I mean, if you have a guest that uses -mem-path you can't
migrate it to -object memory-backing-file because qemu would fail to
load the migration stream. That is why we have @needBackend in
qemuBuildNumaArgStr(), so that new cmd line is built iff really needed.
This is the reason I went this way even though BZ suggests otherwise.
Curious how others feel - I'm not against this choice, just trying to
supply an opposing/differing viewpoint. We really have to start coding
for the future and consider what deprecation could mean especially for
arguments that essentially mean the same thing.
Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik
---
src/qemu/qemu_command.c | 37 +--
src/qemu/qemu_command.h | 1 +
src/qemu/qemu_domain.c| 2 +
src/qemu/qemu_domain.h| 3 ++
src/qemu/qemu_hotplug.c | 3 +-
.../hugepages-numa-default-dimm.args | 2 +-
6 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_command.c b/src/qemu/qemu_command.c
index e338d3172e..0294030f0e 100644
--- a/src/qemu/qemu_command.c
+++ b/src/qemu/qemu_command.c
@@ -3123,6 +3123,7 @@ qemuBuildControllerDevCommandLine(virCommandPtr cmd,
* @def: domain definition object
* @mem: memory definition object
* @autoNodeset: fallback nodeset in case of automatic NUMA placement
+ * @forbidPrealloc: don't set prealloc attribute
Slight bikeshed, but this changes the priv->memAlloc to @forbidPrealloc
which is IMO a bit odd.
Okay, what name do you suggest? My reasoning for the name was that it
should make sense from the function POV. That's why calling the variable
'memAlloc' did not make sense to me.
Beyond that, this becomes the 3rd @priv field to be passed along...
Maybe @priv should just be passed to access qemuCaps, autoNodeset, and
memPrealloc.
Ah sure.
* @force: forcibly use one of the backends
*
* Creates a configuration object that represents memory backend of given guest
@@ -3136,6 +3137,9 @@ qemuBuildControllerDevCommandLine(virCommandPtr cmd,
* Then, if one of the two memory-backend-* should be used, the @qemuCaps is
* consulted to check if qemu does support it.
*
+ * If @forbidPrealloc is true then 'prealloc' attribute of the backend is not
+ * set. This may come handy when global -mem-prealloc is already specified.
+ *
* Returns: 0 on success,
* 1 on success and if there's no need to use memory-backend-*
* -1 on error.
@@ -3148,6 +3152,7 @@ qemuBuildMemoryBackendProps(virJSONValuePtr *backendProps,
virDomainDefPtr def,
virDomainMemoryDefPtr mem,
virBitmapPtr autoNodeset,
+bool forbidPrealloc,
bool force)
{
const char *backendType = "memory-backend-file";
@@ -3265,11 +3270,13 @@ qemuBuildMemoryBackendProps(virJSONValuePtr
*backendProps,
if (mem->nvdimmPath) {
if (VIR_STRDUP(memPath, mem->nvdimmPath) < 0)
goto cleanup;
-prealloc = true;
+if (!forbidPrealloc)
+prealloc = true;
} else if (useHugepage) {
if (qemuGetDomainHupageMemPath(def, cfg, pagesize, ) < 0)
goto cleanup;
-prealloc = true;
+if (!forbidPrealloc)
+prealloc = true;
} else {
/* We can have both pagesize and mem source. If that's the
Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] qemu: Don't use -mem-prealloc among with .prealloc=yes
On 11/7/18 4:47 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> On 11/07/2018 12:43 AM, John Ferlan wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11/5/18 9:49 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1624223
>>>
>>> There are two ways to request memory preallocation on cmd line:
>>> -mem-prealloc and .prealloc attribute to memory-backend-file.
>>
>> s/to/for a/ ?
>>
>>> However, as it turns out it's not safe to use both at the same
>>> time. Prefer -mem-prealloc as it is more backward compatible
>>> compared to switching to "-numa node,memdev= + -object
>>> memory-backend-file".
>>>
>>
>> FWIW: Issue introduced by commit 1c4f3b56..
>>
>> While I understand the reasoning, it's really too bad we couldn't "move"
>> the determination over which conflicting qualifier is used to earlier.
>> By the time we call the -numa backend we would already have had to make
>> the choice if I'm reading the ordering right.
>
> Correct, you're reading it right.
>
>>
>> But if it doesn't matter for the -numa object to use the -mem-prealloc,
>> then who am I to complain. Of course the "future thinking" me that is
>> living in the present issues surrounding machine and pc makes me wonder
>> if choosing this as the default going forward into the future where
>> someone could deprecate the -mem-prealloc because -numa will be so
>> prevelant won't bite us down the road.
>
> If -mem-prealloc is deprecated then we would have to construct -object
> memory-backend-file. I'm not against this, but IIRC this fails during
> migration. I mean, if you have a guest that uses -mem-path you can't
> migrate it to -object memory-backing-file because qemu would fail to
> load the migration stream. That is why we have @needBackend in
> qemuBuildNumaArgStr(), so that new cmd line is built iff really needed.
>
> This is the reason I went this way even though BZ suggests otherwise.
>
So having the need for -mem-path would seem to need to be a migration
deal breaker regardless, true? It's "confusing" to tie -mem-path,
-mem-prealloc, and .prealloc=yes for the less informed reader. There's
some "relationships" here that without explicitly detailing them could
at some point in time get lost/misunderstood and then cause problems.
>>
>> Curious how others feel - I'm not against this choice, just trying to
>> supply an opposing/differing viewpoint. We really have to start coding
>> for the future and consider what deprecation could mean especially for
>> arguments that essentially mean the same thing.
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik
>>> ---
>>> src/qemu/qemu_command.c | 37 +--
>>> src/qemu/qemu_command.h | 1 +
>>> src/qemu/qemu_domain.c| 2 +
>>> src/qemu/qemu_domain.h| 3 ++
>>> src/qemu/qemu_hotplug.c | 3 +-
>>> .../hugepages-numa-default-dimm.args | 2 +-
>>> 6 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_command.c b/src/qemu/qemu_command.c
>>> index e338d3172e..0294030f0e 100644
>>> --- a/src/qemu/qemu_command.c
>>> +++ b/src/qemu/qemu_command.c
>>> @@ -3123,6 +3123,7 @@ qemuBuildControllerDevCommandLine(virCommandPtr cmd,
>>> * @def: domain definition object
>>> * @mem: memory definition object
>>> * @autoNodeset: fallback nodeset in case of automatic NUMA placement
>>> + * @forbidPrealloc: don't set prealloc attribute
>>
>> Slight bikeshed, but this changes the priv->memAlloc to @forbidPrealloc
>> which is IMO a bit odd.
>
> Okay, what name do you suggest? My reasoning for the name was that it
> should make sense from the function POV. That's why calling the variable
> 'memAlloc' did not make sense to me.
>
No real suggestion other than @memPrealloc for consistency (which you
figured out from my miss-typed priv->memAlloc).
>>
>> Beyond that, this becomes the 3rd @priv field to be passed along...
>> Maybe @priv should just be passed to access qemuCaps, autoNodeset, and
>> memPrealloc.
>
> Ah sure.
>
>>
[...]
>>> qemuBuildMemCommandLine(virCommandPtr cmd,
>>> virQEMUDriverConfigPtr cfg,
>>> const virDomainDef *def,
>>> -virQEMUCapsPtr qemuCaps)
>>> +virQEMUCapsPtr qemuCaps,
>>> +qemuDomainObjPrivatePtr priv)
>>> {
>>> if (qemuDomainDefValidateMemoryHotplug(def, qemuCaps, NULL) < 0)
>>> return -1;
>>> @@ -7498,15 +7511,17 @@ qemuBuildMemCommandLine(virCommandPtr cmd,
>>>virDomainDefGetMemoryInitial(def) / 1024);
>>> }
>>>
>>> -if (def->mem.allocation == VIR_DOMAIN_MEMORY_ALLOCATION_IMMEDIATE)
>>> +if (def->mem.allocation == VIR_DOMAIN_MEMORY_ALLOCATION_IMMEDIATE) {
>>> virCommandAddArgList(cmd, "-mem-prealloc", NULL);
>>> +priv->memPrealloc = true;
>>> +}
>>
>> I find it "confusing" that setting memPrealloc = true when
>> "def->mem.allocation ==
Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] qemu: Don't use -mem-prealloc among with .prealloc=yes
On 11/07/2018 12:43 AM, John Ferlan wrote:
>
>
> On 11/5/18 9:49 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1624223
>>
>> There are two ways to request memory preallocation on cmd line:
>> -mem-prealloc and .prealloc attribute to memory-backend-file.
>
> s/to/for a/ ?
>
>> However, as it turns out it's not safe to use both at the same
>> time. Prefer -mem-prealloc as it is more backward compatible
>> compared to switching to "-numa node,memdev= + -object
>> memory-backend-file".
>>
>
> FWIW: Issue introduced by commit 1c4f3b56..
>
> While I understand the reasoning, it's really too bad we couldn't "move"
> the determination over which conflicting qualifier is used to earlier.
> By the time we call the -numa backend we would already have had to make
> the choice if I'm reading the ordering right.
Correct, you're reading it right.
>
> But if it doesn't matter for the -numa object to use the -mem-prealloc,
> then who am I to complain. Of course the "future thinking" me that is
> living in the present issues surrounding machine and pc makes me wonder
> if choosing this as the default going forward into the future where
> someone could deprecate the -mem-prealloc because -numa will be so
> prevelant won't bite us down the road.
If -mem-prealloc is deprecated then we would have to construct -object
memory-backend-file. I'm not against this, but IIRC this fails during
migration. I mean, if you have a guest that uses -mem-path you can't
migrate it to -object memory-backing-file because qemu would fail to
load the migration stream. That is why we have @needBackend in
qemuBuildNumaArgStr(), so that new cmd line is built iff really needed.
This is the reason I went this way even though BZ suggests otherwise.
>
> Curious how others feel - I'm not against this choice, just trying to
> supply an opposing/differing viewpoint. We really have to start coding
> for the future and consider what deprecation could mean especially for
> arguments that essentially mean the same thing.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik
>> ---
>> src/qemu/qemu_command.c | 37 +--
>> src/qemu/qemu_command.h | 1 +
>> src/qemu/qemu_domain.c| 2 +
>> src/qemu/qemu_domain.h| 3 ++
>> src/qemu/qemu_hotplug.c | 3 +-
>> .../hugepages-numa-default-dimm.args | 2 +-
>> 6 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_command.c b/src/qemu/qemu_command.c
>> index e338d3172e..0294030f0e 100644
>> --- a/src/qemu/qemu_command.c
>> +++ b/src/qemu/qemu_command.c
>> @@ -3123,6 +3123,7 @@ qemuBuildControllerDevCommandLine(virCommandPtr cmd,
>> * @def: domain definition object
>> * @mem: memory definition object
>> * @autoNodeset: fallback nodeset in case of automatic NUMA placement
>> + * @forbidPrealloc: don't set prealloc attribute
>
> Slight bikeshed, but this changes the priv->memAlloc to @forbidPrealloc
> which is IMO a bit odd.
Okay, what name do you suggest? My reasoning for the name was that it
should make sense from the function POV. That's why calling the variable
'memAlloc' did not make sense to me.
>
> Beyond that, this becomes the 3rd @priv field to be passed along...
> Maybe @priv should just be passed to access qemuCaps, autoNodeset, and
> memPrealloc.
Ah sure.
>
>> * @force: forcibly use one of the backends
>> *
>> * Creates a configuration object that represents memory backend of given
>> guest
>> @@ -3136,6 +3137,9 @@ qemuBuildControllerDevCommandLine(virCommandPtr cmd,
>> * Then, if one of the two memory-backend-* should be used, the @qemuCaps is
>> * consulted to check if qemu does support it.
>> *
>> + * If @forbidPrealloc is true then 'prealloc' attribute of the backend is
>> not
>> + * set. This may come handy when global -mem-prealloc is already specified.
>> + *
>> * Returns: 0 on success,
>> * 1 on success and if there's no need to use memory-backend-*
>> * -1 on error.
>> @@ -3148,6 +3152,7 @@ qemuBuildMemoryBackendProps(virJSONValuePtr
>> *backendProps,
>> virDomainDefPtr def,
>> virDomainMemoryDefPtr mem,
>> virBitmapPtr autoNodeset,
>> +bool forbidPrealloc,
>> bool force)
>> {
>> const char *backendType = "memory-backend-file";
>> @@ -3265,11 +3270,13 @@ qemuBuildMemoryBackendProps(virJSONValuePtr
>> *backendProps,
>> if (mem->nvdimmPath) {
>> if (VIR_STRDUP(memPath, mem->nvdimmPath) < 0)
>> goto cleanup;
>> -prealloc = true;
>> +if (!forbidPrealloc)
>> +prealloc = true;
>> } else if (useHugepage) {
>> if (qemuGetDomainHupageMemPath(def, cfg, pagesize, ) <
>> 0)
>> goto cleanup;
>> -
Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] qemu: Don't use -mem-prealloc among with .prealloc=yes
On 11/5/18 9:49 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1624223
>
> There are two ways to request memory preallocation on cmd line:
> -mem-prealloc and .prealloc attribute to memory-backend-file.
s/to/for a/ ?
> However, as it turns out it's not safe to use both at the same
> time. Prefer -mem-prealloc as it is more backward compatible
> compared to switching to "-numa node,memdev= + -object
> memory-backend-file".
>
FWIW: Issue introduced by commit 1c4f3b56..
While I understand the reasoning, it's really too bad we couldn't "move"
the determination over which conflicting qualifier is used to earlier.
By the time we call the -numa backend we would already have had to make
the choice if I'm reading the ordering right.
But if it doesn't matter for the -numa object to use the -mem-prealloc,
then who am I to complain. Of course the "future thinking" me that is
living in the present issues surrounding machine and pc makes me wonder
if choosing this as the default going forward into the future where
someone could deprecate the -mem-prealloc because -numa will be so
prevelant won't bite us down the road.
Curious how others feel - I'm not against this choice, just trying to
supply an opposing/differing viewpoint. We really have to start coding
for the future and consider what deprecation could mean especially for
arguments that essentially mean the same thing.
> Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik
> ---
> src/qemu/qemu_command.c | 37 +--
> src/qemu/qemu_command.h | 1 +
> src/qemu/qemu_domain.c| 2 +
> src/qemu/qemu_domain.h| 3 ++
> src/qemu/qemu_hotplug.c | 3 +-
> .../hugepages-numa-default-dimm.args | 2 +-
> 6 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_command.c b/src/qemu/qemu_command.c
> index e338d3172e..0294030f0e 100644
> --- a/src/qemu/qemu_command.c
> +++ b/src/qemu/qemu_command.c
> @@ -3123,6 +3123,7 @@ qemuBuildControllerDevCommandLine(virCommandPtr cmd,
> * @def: domain definition object
> * @mem: memory definition object
> * @autoNodeset: fallback nodeset in case of automatic NUMA placement
> + * @forbidPrealloc: don't set prealloc attribute
Slight bikeshed, but this changes the priv->memAlloc to @forbidPrealloc
which is IMO a bit odd.
Beyond that, this becomes the 3rd @priv field to be passed along...
Maybe @priv should just be passed to access qemuCaps, autoNodeset, and
memPrealloc.
> * @force: forcibly use one of the backends
> *
> * Creates a configuration object that represents memory backend of given
> guest
> @@ -3136,6 +3137,9 @@ qemuBuildControllerDevCommandLine(virCommandPtr cmd,
> * Then, if one of the two memory-backend-* should be used, the @qemuCaps is
> * consulted to check if qemu does support it.
> *
> + * If @forbidPrealloc is true then 'prealloc' attribute of the backend is not
> + * set. This may come handy when global -mem-prealloc is already specified.
> + *
> * Returns: 0 on success,
> * 1 on success and if there's no need to use memory-backend-*
> * -1 on error.
> @@ -3148,6 +3152,7 @@ qemuBuildMemoryBackendProps(virJSONValuePtr
> *backendProps,
> virDomainDefPtr def,
> virDomainMemoryDefPtr mem,
> virBitmapPtr autoNodeset,
> +bool forbidPrealloc,
> bool force)
> {
> const char *backendType = "memory-backend-file";
> @@ -3265,11 +3270,13 @@ qemuBuildMemoryBackendProps(virJSONValuePtr
> *backendProps,
> if (mem->nvdimmPath) {
> if (VIR_STRDUP(memPath, mem->nvdimmPath) < 0)
> goto cleanup;
> -prealloc = true;
> +if (!forbidPrealloc)
> +prealloc = true;
> } else if (useHugepage) {
> if (qemuGetDomainHupageMemPath(def, cfg, pagesize, ) < 0)
> goto cleanup;
> -prealloc = true;
> +if (!forbidPrealloc)
> +prealloc = true;
> } else {
> /* We can have both pagesize and mem source. If that's the case,
> * prefer hugepages as those are more specific. */
> @@ -3398,7 +3405,8 @@ qemuBuildMemoryCellBackendStr(virDomainDefPtr def,
> mem.info.alias = alias;
>
> if ((rc = qemuBuildMemoryBackendProps(, alias, cfg, priv->qemuCaps,
> - def, , priv->autoNodeset,
> false)) < 0)
> + def, , priv->autoNodeset,
> + priv->memPrealloc, false)) < 0)
> goto cleanup;
>
> if (virQEMUBuildObjectCommandlineFromJSON(buf, props) < 0)
> @@ -3435,7 +3443,8 @@ qemuBuildMemoryDimmBackendStr(virBufferPtr buf,
> goto cleanup;
>
> if
[libvirt] [PATCH] qemu: Don't use -mem-prealloc among with .prealloc=yes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1624223
There are two ways to request memory preallocation on cmd line:
-mem-prealloc and .prealloc attribute to memory-backend-file.
However, as it turns out it's not safe to use both at the same
time. Prefer -mem-prealloc as it is more backward compatible
compared to switching to "-numa node,memdev= + -object
memory-backend-file".
Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik
---
src/qemu/qemu_command.c | 37 +--
src/qemu/qemu_command.h | 1 +
src/qemu/qemu_domain.c| 2 +
src/qemu/qemu_domain.h| 3 ++
src/qemu/qemu_hotplug.c | 3 +-
.../hugepages-numa-default-dimm.args | 2 +-
6 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_command.c b/src/qemu/qemu_command.c
index e338d3172e..0294030f0e 100644
--- a/src/qemu/qemu_command.c
+++ b/src/qemu/qemu_command.c
@@ -3123,6 +3123,7 @@ qemuBuildControllerDevCommandLine(virCommandPtr cmd,
* @def: domain definition object
* @mem: memory definition object
* @autoNodeset: fallback nodeset in case of automatic NUMA placement
+ * @forbidPrealloc: don't set prealloc attribute
* @force: forcibly use one of the backends
*
* Creates a configuration object that represents memory backend of given guest
@@ -3136,6 +3137,9 @@ qemuBuildControllerDevCommandLine(virCommandPtr cmd,
* Then, if one of the two memory-backend-* should be used, the @qemuCaps is
* consulted to check if qemu does support it.
*
+ * If @forbidPrealloc is true then 'prealloc' attribute of the backend is not
+ * set. This may come handy when global -mem-prealloc is already specified.
+ *
* Returns: 0 on success,
* 1 on success and if there's no need to use memory-backend-*
* -1 on error.
@@ -3148,6 +3152,7 @@ qemuBuildMemoryBackendProps(virJSONValuePtr *backendProps,
virDomainDefPtr def,
virDomainMemoryDefPtr mem,
virBitmapPtr autoNodeset,
+bool forbidPrealloc,
bool force)
{
const char *backendType = "memory-backend-file";
@@ -3265,11 +3270,13 @@ qemuBuildMemoryBackendProps(virJSONValuePtr
*backendProps,
if (mem->nvdimmPath) {
if (VIR_STRDUP(memPath, mem->nvdimmPath) < 0)
goto cleanup;
-prealloc = true;
+if (!forbidPrealloc)
+prealloc = true;
} else if (useHugepage) {
if (qemuGetDomainHupageMemPath(def, cfg, pagesize, ) < 0)
goto cleanup;
-prealloc = true;
+if (!forbidPrealloc)
+prealloc = true;
} else {
/* We can have both pagesize and mem source. If that's the case,
* prefer hugepages as those are more specific. */
@@ -3398,7 +3405,8 @@ qemuBuildMemoryCellBackendStr(virDomainDefPtr def,
mem.info.alias = alias;
if ((rc = qemuBuildMemoryBackendProps(, alias, cfg, priv->qemuCaps,
- def, , priv->autoNodeset,
false)) < 0)
+ def, , priv->autoNodeset,
+ priv->memPrealloc, false)) < 0)
goto cleanup;
if (virQEMUBuildObjectCommandlineFromJSON(buf, props) < 0)
@@ -3435,7 +3443,8 @@ qemuBuildMemoryDimmBackendStr(virBufferPtr buf,
goto cleanup;
if (qemuBuildMemoryBackendProps(, alias, cfg, priv->qemuCaps,
-def, mem, priv->autoNodeset, true) < 0)
+def, mem, priv->autoNodeset,
+priv->memPrealloc, true) < 0)
goto cleanup;
if (virQEMUBuildObjectCommandlineFromJSON(buf, props) < 0)
@@ -7443,7 +7452,8 @@ qemuBuildSmpCommandLine(virCommandPtr cmd,
static int
qemuBuildMemPathStr(virQEMUDriverConfigPtr cfg,
const virDomainDef *def,
-virCommandPtr cmd)
+virCommandPtr cmd,
+qemuDomainObjPrivatePtr priv)
{
const long system_page_size = virGetSystemPageSizeKB();
char *mem_path = NULL;
@@ -7465,8 +7475,10 @@ qemuBuildMemPathStr(virQEMUDriverConfigPtr cfg,
return 0;
}
-if (def->mem.allocation != VIR_DOMAIN_MEMORY_ALLOCATION_IMMEDIATE)
+if (def->mem.allocation != VIR_DOMAIN_MEMORY_ALLOCATION_IMMEDIATE) {
virCommandAddArgList(cmd, "-mem-prealloc", NULL);
+priv->memPrealloc = true;
+}
virCommandAddArgList(cmd, "-mem-path", mem_path, NULL);
VIR_FREE(mem_path);
@@ -7479,7 +7491,8 @@ static int
qemuBuildMemCommandLine(virCommandPtr cmd,
virQEMUDriverConfigPtr cfg,
const virDomainDef *def,
-virQEMUCapsPtr qemuCaps)
+
