On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 11:00:39AM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 04:00:25PM +1100, David Gibson wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:09:21AM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote: > > > If guest doesn't have any dynamically reconfigurable (DR) logical memory > > > blocks (LMB), then we shouldn't create ibm,dynamic-reconfiguration-memory > > > device tree node. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Bharata B Rao <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > This applies against ppc-for-2.6 branch of David Gibson's tree. > > > > Applied to ppc-for-2.6, thanks. > > There is a slight change in memory nodes representation in DT after this fix > that could result in the following behaviour before and after migration. > > For a guest with -m 4G -numa node,nodeid=0,mem=2G -numa node,nodeid=1,mem=2G, > the DT under /proc/device-tree changes like this: > > Guest started with QEMU w/o this fix > ------------------------------------ > memory@0 > memory@80000000 > ibm,dynamic-reconfiguration-memory > > Guest migrated to QEMU w/ this fix included > ------------------------------------------- > memory@0 > memory@80000000 > ibm,dynamic-reconfiguration-memory > > After next reboot > ----------------- > memory@0 > memory@80000000 > > I guess this is ok, but wanted to sound out this change explicitly.
Yeah, I think that should be ok.
Generally device tree changes won't break migration, because the guest
(or SLOF) will have already grabbed the old device tree from the
source qemu.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
