3:26 a.m.
Now that the multi-phb support series is in, work on the TODO at
qemuDomainGetMemLockLimitBytes() to arrive at the correct memlock limit
value.
Signed-off-by: Shivaprasad G Bhat <sbhat(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
This patch should be applied on top of Andrea's multi-phb support
patchset.
src/qemu/qemu_domain.c | 12 ++++++++----
tests/qemumemlocktest.c | 2 +-
2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_domain.c b/src/qemu/qemu_domain.c
index a3ce10a..a8293b4 100644
--- a/src/qemu/qemu_domain.c
+++ b/src/qemu/qemu_domain.c
@@ -6674,12 +6674,16 @@ qemuDomainGetMemLockLimitBytes(virDomainDefPtr def)
unsigned long long memory;
unsigned long long baseLimit;
unsigned long long passthroughLimit;
- size_t nPCIHostBridges;
+ size_t nPCIHostBridges = 0;
bool usesVFIO = false;
- /* TODO: Detect at runtime once we start using more than just
- * the default PCI Host Bridge */
- nPCIHostBridges = 1;
+ for (i = 0; i < def->ncontrollers; i++) {
+ if (def->controllers[i]->type != VIR_DOMAIN_CONTROLLER_TYPE_PCI ||
+ def->controllers[i]->model != VIR_DOMAIN_CONTROLLER_MODEL_PCI_ROOT)
{
+ continue;
+ }
+ nPCIHostBridges++;
+ }
for (i = 0; i < def->nhostdevs; i++) {
virDomainHostdevDefPtr dev = def->hostdevs[i];
diff --git a/tests/qemumemlocktest.c b/tests/qemumemlocktest.c
index c0f1dc3..268563d 100644
--- a/tests/qemumemlocktest.c
+++ b/tests/qemumemlocktest.c
@@ -131,7 +131,7 @@ mymain(void)
DO_TEST("pseries-hardlimit", 2147483648);
DO_TEST("pseries-locked", VIR_DOMAIN_MEMORY_PARAM_UNLIMITED);
- DO_TEST("pseries-hostdev", 2168455168);
+ DO_TEST("pseries-hostdev", 4320133120);
DO_TEST("pseries-hardlimit+locked", 2147483648);
DO_TEST("pseries-hardlimit+hostdev", 2147483648);
8:51 a.m.
On Fri, 2017-06-30 at 13:56 +0530, Shivaprasad G Bhat wrote:
- /* TODO: Detect at runtime once we start using more than
just
- * the default PCI Host Bridge */
- nPCIHostBridges = 1;
+ for (i = 0; i < def->ncontrollers; i++) {
+ if (def->controllers[i]->type != VIR_DOMAIN_CONTROLLER_TYPE_PCI ||
+ def->controllers[i]->model !=
VIR_DOMAIN_CONTROLLER_MODEL_PCI_ROOT) {
+ continue;
+ }
+ nPCIHostBridges++;
+ }
Just to be on the safe side, we should probably make sure the
pci-root controller is actually a PHB by looking at modelName
as well, like:
for (i = 0; i < def->ncontrollers; i++) {
virDomainControllerDefPtr cont = def->controllers[i];
if (cont->type != VIR_DOMAIN_CONTROLLER_TYPE_PCI ||
cont->model != VIR_DOMAIN_CONTROLLER_MODEL_PCI_ROOT ||
cont->opts.pciopts->modelName !=
VIR_DOMAIN_CONTROLLER_PCI_MODEL_NAME_SPAPR_PCI_HOST_BRIDGE) {
continue;
}
nPCIHostBridges++;
}
Boy, that model name sure is a mouthful[1].
I think we might have enough occurrences of this pattern to
warrant the creation of a virDomainControllerIsPCIHostBridge()
helper function, which you could then use in your patch.
That said, it might be smarter to do so in a follow-up cleanup
commit in order not to invalidate existing Reviewed-by tags.
Laine, what would be your preference?
[1] Except for fingers. Fingerful?
--
Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization
8:20 p.m.
On 07/03/2017 09:51 AM, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
On Fri, 2017-06-30 at 13:56 +0530, Shivaprasad G Bhat wrote:
> - /* TODO: Detect at runtime once we start using more than just
> - * the default PCI Host Bridge */
> - nPCIHostBridges = 1;
> + for (i = 0; i < def->ncontrollers; i++) {
> + if (def->controllers[i]->type != VIR_DOMAIN_CONTROLLER_TYPE_PCI
||
> + def->controllers[i]->model !=
VIR_DOMAIN_CONTROLLER_MODEL_PCI_ROOT) {
> + continue;
> + }
> + nPCIHostBridges++;
> + }
Just to be on the safe side, we should probably make sure the
pci-root controller is actually a PHB by looking at modelName
as well, like:
for (i = 0; i < def->ncontrollers; i++) {
virDomainControllerDefPtr cont = def->controllers[i];
if (cont->type != VIR_DOMAIN_CONTROLLER_TYPE_PCI ||
cont->model != VIR_DOMAIN_CONTROLLER_MODEL_PCI_ROOT ||
cont->opts.pciopts->modelName !=
VIR_DOMAIN_CONTROLLER_PCI_MODEL_NAME_SPAPR_PCI_HOST_BRIDGE) {
continue;
}
nPCIHostBridges++;
}
Boy, that model name sure is a mouthful[1].
I think we might have enough occurrences of this pattern to
warrant the creation of a virDomainControllerIsPCIHostBridge()
helper function, which you could then use in your patch.
That said, it might be smarter to do so in a follow-up cleanup
commit in order not to invalidate existing Reviewed-by tags.
Laine, what would be your preference?
Either is fine with me.
2696
days inactive
2702
days old
2 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Andrea Bolognani -
Laine Stump -
Shivaprasad G Bhat