----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eduardo Habkost" <ehabk...@redhat.com> > To: "Igor Mammedov" <imamm...@redhat.com> > Cc: "Greg Kurz" <gr...@kaod.org>, "Thomas Huth" <th...@redhat.com>, > qemu-devel@nongnu.org, pbonz...@redhat.com > Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2016 8:00:06 PM > Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] numa: set the memory backend "is_mapped" > field > > On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 12:07:53PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 10:28:35 +0200 > > Greg Kurz <gr...@kaod.org> wrote: > > > > > Commit 2aece63 "hostmem: detect host backend memory is being used > > > properly" > > > added a way to know if a memory backend is busy or available for use. It > > > caused a slight regression if we pass the same backend to a NUMA node and > > > to a pc-dimm device: > > > > > > -m 1G,slots=2,maxmem=2G \ > > > -object memory-backend-ram,size=1G,id=mem-mem1 \ > > > -device pc-dimm,id=dimm-mem1,memdev=mem-mem1 \ > > > -numa node,nodeid=0,memdev=mem-mem1 > > > > > > Before commit 2aece63, this would cause QEMU to print an error message > > > and > > > to exit gracefully: > > > > > > qemu-system-ppc64: -device pc-dimm,id=dimm-mem1,memdev=mem-mem1: > > > can't use already busy memdev: mem-mem1 > > > > > > Since commit 2aece63, QEMU hits an assertion in the memory code: > > > > > > qemu-system-ppc64: memory.c:1934: memory_region_add_subregion_common: > > > Assertion `!subregion->container' failed. > > > Aborted > > > > > > This happens because pc-dimm devices don't use memory_region_is_mapped() > > > anymore and cannot guess the backend is already used by a NUMA node. > > > > > > Let's revert to the previous behavior by turning the NUMA code to also > > > call host_memory_backend_set_mapped() when it uses a backend. > > > > > > Fixes: 2aece63c8a9d2c3a8ff41d2febc4cdeff2633331 > > > Signed-off-by: Greg Kurz <gr...@kaod.org> > > Reviewed-by: Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com> > > I have just noticed that this fell through the cracks, sorry. > Applied to numa-next. Thanks!
Actually I am just finishing tests of a pull request that included it (because I was the one that caused the regression). Ok for me to just handle this one patch? Paolo
