Re: [PATCH] softmmu/physmem: Use qemu_madvise

[Dr. David Alan Gilbert]

* Peter Maydell (peter.maydell@linaro.org) wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 at 07:53, David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 16.03.22 05:04, Andrew Deason wrote:
> > > We have a thin wrapper around madvise, called qemu_madvise, which
> > > provides consistent behavior for the !CONFIG_MADVISE case, and works
> > > around some platform-specific quirks (some platforms only provide
> > > posix_madvise, and some don't offer all 'advise' types). This specific
> > > caller of madvise has never used it, tracing back to its original
> > > introduction in commit e0b266f01dd2 ("migration_completion: Take
> > > current state").
> > >
> > > Call qemu_madvise here, to follow the same logic as all of our other
> > > madvise callers. This slightly changes the behavior for
> > > !CONFIG_MADVISE (EINVAL instead of ENOSYS, and a slightly different
> > > error message), but this is now more consistent with other callers
> > > that use qemu_madvise.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Deason <adeason@sinenomine.net>
> > > ---
> > > Looking at the history of commits that touch this madvise() call, it
> > > doesn't _look_ like there's any reason to be directly calling madvise vs
> > > qemu_advise (I don't see anything mentioned), but I'm not sure.
> > >
> > >  softmmu/physmem.c | 12 ++----------
> > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/softmmu/physmem.c b/softmmu/physmem.c
> > > index 43ae70fbe2..900c692b5e 100644
> > > --- a/softmmu/physmem.c
> > > +++ b/softmmu/physmem.c
> > > @@ -3584,40 +3584,32 @@ int ram_block_discard_range(RAMBlock *rb, 
> > > uint64_t start, size_t length)
> > >                           rb->idstr, start, length, ret);
> > >              goto err;
> > >  #endif
> > >          }
> > >          if (need_madvise) {
> > >              /* For normal RAM this causes it to be unmapped,
> > >               * for shared memory it causes the local mapping to disappear
> > >               * and to fall back on the file contents (which we just
> > >               * fallocate'd away).
> > >               */
> > > -#if defined(CONFIG_MADVISE)
> > >              if (qemu_ram_is_shared(rb) && rb->fd < 0) {
> > > -                ret = madvise(host_startaddr, length, QEMU_MADV_REMOVE);
> > > +                ret = qemu_madvise(host_startaddr, length, 
> > > QEMU_MADV_REMOVE);
> > >              } else {
> > > -                ret = madvise(host_startaddr, length, 
> > > QEMU_MADV_DONTNEED);
> > > +                ret = qemu_madvise(host_startaddr, length, 
> > > QEMU_MADV_DONTNEED);
> >
> > posix_madvise(QEMU_MADV_DONTNEED) has completely different semantics
> > then madvise() -- it's not a discard that we need here.
> >
> > So ram_block_discard_range() would now succeed in environments (BSD?)
> > where it's supposed to fail.
> >
> > So AFAIKs this isn't sane.
> 
> But CONFIG_MADVISE just means "host has madvise()"; it doesn't imply
> "this is a Linux madvise() with MADV_DONTNEED". Solaris madvise()
> doesn't seem to have  MADV_DONTNEED at all; a quick look at the
> FreeBSD manpage suggests its madvise MADV_DONTNEED is identical
> to its posix_madvise MADV_DONTNEED.
> 
> If we need "specifically Linux MADV_DONTNEED semantics" maybe we
> should define a QEMU_MADV_LINUX_DONTNEED which either (a) does the
> right thing or (b) fails, and use qemu_madvise() regardless.
> 
> Certainly the current code is pretty fragile to being changed by
> people who don't understand the undocumented subtlety behind
> the use of a direct madvise() call here.

Yeh and I'm not sure I can remembe rall the subtleties; there's a big
hairy set of ifdef's in include/qemu/madvise.h that makes
sure we always have the definition of QEMU_MADV_REMOVE/DONTNEED
even on platforms that might not define it themselves.

But I think this code is used for things with different degrees
of care about the semantics; e.g. 'balloon' just cares that
it frees memory up and doesn't care about the detailed semantics
that much; so it's probably fine with that.
Postcopy is much more touchy, but then it's only going to be
calling this on Linux anyway (because of the userfault dependency).

Dave

> -- PMM
> 
-- 
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilbert@redhat.com / Manchester, UK