On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 03:42:15PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2016 21:11:38 +0800
> Haozhong Zhang <haozhong.zh...@intel.com> wrote:
>
> > On 10/20/16 14:34 +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > >On Thu, 20 Oct 2016 14:13:01 +0800
> > >Haozhong Zhang <haozhong.zh...@intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> If a file is used as the backend of memory-backend-file and its size is
> > >> not identical to the property 'size', the file will be truncated. For a
> > >> file used as the backend of vNVDIMM, its data is expected to be
> > >> persistent and the truncation may corrupt the existing data.
> > >I wonder if it's possible just skip 'size' property in your case instead
> > >'notrunc' property. That way if size is not present one'd get actual size
> > >using get_file_size() and set 'size' to it?
> > >And if 'size' is provided and 'size' != file_size then error out.
> > >
> >
> > I don't know how this can be implemented in QEMU. Specially, how does
> > the memory-backend-file know it's used for vNVDIMM, so that it can
> > skip the 'size' property?
> Does memory-backend-file needs to know that it's used by NVDIMM?
> Looking at nvdimm_realize it doesn't as it's assumes
> hostemem_size == pmem_size + label_size
>
> I'd make hostmem_file.size optional and take size from file
> and if 'size' is specified explictly require it to mach file size.
> It's generic and has nothing to do with nvdimm.
We can take size from file, or take size from the
host_memory_backend_get_memory() callers.
Enumerating all sizes that QEMU can use as input:
A) Backend file size
B) memory backend "size" option
C) frontend-provided size (-numa size, -m, or pc-dimm "size"
property)
My suggestion is:
* B should be optional.
* If B is omitted, we should never truncate the file to a smaller
size.
* If B is omitted, we can use C as the size when mapping the
file.
* If B is omitted, and C > A, maybe we could use ftruncate() to
extend the file to make users happy. But I'm not sure we
should (I think B should be the only option that cause
truncation).
* If we want to make C optional on some cases, we could use A if
B is omitted.
Does that make sense?
--
Eduardo
