qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/3] pc-dimm: add a function to calculate VM'


From: zhanghailiang
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/3] pc-dimm: add a function to calculate VM's current RAM size
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 10:31:01 +0800
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.1

On 2014/11/20 0:31, Eric Blake wrote:
On 11/19/2014 09:06 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:

This affects QMP right?

I think later patches will tell how. CC'ing Eric.

As far as I can tell, this is just correcting a reporting issue; the
existing QMP commands/events for tracking balloon size will now properly
account for hotplugged memory.

What I don't know is if this change in semantics will affect any users.
  Libvirt is not yet supporting memory hotplug, so ideally, fixing this
bug before libvirt uses memory hotplug means libvirt will never have to
worry about qemu versions that do incorrect reporting.

The alternative is to declare that the existing QMP commands cannot
change in semantics for the existing members that it reports, and must
instead report additional dictionary members describing the amount of
hot-plugged memory, and then require that the client add the numbers
together itself.  That sounds mean to the client, so I'm hoping we don't
have to go there.


IOW you ack this patch for 2.2?


Is memory hotplug one of the new features in 2.2?  If so, then yes, we

No, after searching this feature in ChangeLogs, i found pc-dimm memory hotplug
was supported since 2.1. It only supports for x86 target.

And one more thing, i found in 2.2's Changelog it begin to support memory 
hotplug
for s390 target, I'm not sure whether this problem also exists for s390.

should get its semantics right from the start (this is a bug fix to
avoid a release with broken semantics).  On the other hand, if hotplug
existed in 2.1, then we already have a release with odd semantics, so
delaying this fix until 2.3 and leaving 2.2 with the same odd semantics
would not hurt, and it then becomes a judgment call of whether we are
rushing in a possibly incomplete solution by trying to get this into
2.2. (Sorry I haven't been following the history of memory hotplug closer)







reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]