Re: [Qemu-ppc] [RFC PATCH v0 1/2] spapr: Allocate HTAB from machine init

[Bharata B Rao]

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 01:28:53PM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 09:09:48AM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> > Allocate HTAB from ppc_spapr_init() so that we can abort the guest
> > if requested HTAB size is't allocated by the host. However retain the
> > htab reset call in spapr_reset_htab() so that HTAB gets reset (and
> > not allocated) during machine reset.
> 
> I was briefly worried about this, because I recall there as a reason
> htab allocation got moved to the reset handler in the first place.
> Looking at the git history, however, I've convinced myself this is
> basically ok (because you preserve the call during reset to wipe clean
> the htab).
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Bharata B Rao <address@hidden>
> > ---
> >  hw/ppc/spapr.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
> >  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr.c b/hw/ppc/spapr.c
> > index 7f4f196..4692122 100644
> > --- a/hw/ppc/spapr.c
> > +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr.c
> > @@ -979,7 +979,7 @@ static void emulate_spapr_hypercall(PowerPCCPU *cpu)
> >  #define CLEAN_HPTE(_hpte)  ((*(uint64_t *)(_hpte)) &= 
> > tswap64(~HPTE64_V_HPTE_DIRTY))
> >  #define DIRTY_HPTE(_hpte)  ((*(uint64_t *)(_hpte)) |= 
> > tswap64(HPTE64_V_HPTE_DIRTY))
> >  
> > -static void spapr_reset_htab(sPAPRMachineState *spapr)
> > +static void spapr_alloc_htab(sPAPRMachineState *spapr)
> >  {
> >      long shift;
> >      int index;
> > @@ -1012,6 +1012,16 @@ static void spapr_reset_htab(sPAPRMachineState 
> > *spapr)
> >              DIRTY_HPTE(HPTE(spapr->htab, index));
> >          }
> >      }
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void spapr_reset_htab(sPAPRMachineState *spapr)
> > +{
> > +    /*
> > +     * We have already allocated the hash page table, this call will
> > +     * not again allocate but only result in clearing of hash page
> > +     * table entries.
> > +     */
> > +    kvmppc_reset_htab(spapr->htab_shift);
> 
> It's unlikely the kernel will give us less htab than we already have,
> but we really should at least check for that.  Probably not much we
> can do except abort() but at least we can give a useful error message.

With the change I am doing here, this is no longer an allocation path.
Host kernel will just clear the HTAB and return the same htab_shift
that we passed here. So do you think it still makes sense to check
return value ?

Regards,
Bharata.