Re: [PATCH 2/3] exec: posix_madvise usage on SunOS.

[David CARLIER]

It probably does not indeed (maybe Solaris madvise does not provide
but memcntl ?), I was just trying to fix the build only :-)

On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 15:15, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 14:21, David CARLIER <devnexen@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > From a9e3cced279ae55a59847ba232f7828bc2479367 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: David Carlier <devnexen@gmail.com>
> > Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2020 13:29:44 +0100
> > Subject: [PATCH 2/3] exec: posix_madvise usage on SunOS.
> >
> > with _XOPEN_SOURCE set, the older mman.h API based on caddr_t handling
> > is not accessible thus using posix_madvise here.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: David Carlier <devnexen@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  exec.c | 8 ++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/exec.c b/exec.c
> > index 6f381f98e2..0466a75b89 100644
> > --- a/exec.c
> > +++ b/exec.c
> > @@ -3964,7 +3964,15 @@ int ram_block_discard_range(RAMBlock *rb,
> > uint64_t start, size_t length)
> >               * fallocate'd away).
> >               */
> >  #if defined(CONFIG_MADVISE)
> > +#if !defined(CONFIG_SOLARIS)
> >              ret =  madvise(host_startaddr, length, MADV_DONTNEED);
> > +#else
> > +        /*
> > +         * mmap and its caddr_t based api is not accessible
> > +         * with _XOPEN_SOURCE set on illumos
> > +         */
> > +            ret =  posix_madvise(host_startaddr, length, 
> > POSIX_MADV_DONTNEED);
> > +#endif
>
> Hi. I'm not sure this patch will do the right thing, because
> I don't think that Solaris's POSIX_MADV_DONTNEED provides
> the semantics that this QEMU function says it needs. The
> comment at the top of the function says:
>
>  * Unmap pages of memory from start to start+length such that
>  * they a) read as 0, b) Trigger whatever fault mechanism
>  * the OS provides for postcopy.
>  * The pages must be unmapped by the end of the function.
>
> (Aside: the use of 'unmap' in this comment is a bit confusing,
> because it clearly doesn't mean 'unmap' if it wants read-as-0.
> And the reference to faults on postcopy is incomprehensible
> to me: if memory is read-as-0 it isn't going to fault.)
>
> Linux's madvise(MADV_DONTNEED) does guarantee us this
> read-as-zero behaviour. (It's a silly API choice that Linux
> put this behaviour behind madvise, which is supposed to be
> merely advisory, but that's how it is.) The Solaris
> posix_madvise() manpage says it is merely advisory and
> doesn't affect the behaviour of accesses to the memory.
>
> If posix_madvise() behaviour was OK in this function, the
> right way to fix this would be to use qemu_madvise()
> instead, which already provides this "if host has
> madvise(), use it, otherwise use posix_madvise()" logic.
> But I suspect that the direct madvise() here is deliberate.
>
> Side note: not sure the current code is correct for the
> BSDs either -- they have madvise() but don't provide
> Linux's really-read-as-zero guarantee for MADV_DONTNEED.
> So we should probably be doing something else there, and
> whatever that something-else is is probably also what
> Solaris wants.
>
> We use ram_block_discard_range() only in migration and
> in virtio-balloon and virtio-mem; I've cc'd some people
> who hopefully understand what the requirements on this
> function are and might have a view on what the not-Linux
> implementation should look like. (David Gilbert: git
> blame says you wrote this code :-))
>
> thanks
> -- PMM