Bug 1432302
Summary: | Memory-backend-ram is in use when try to remove it from a guest attached with memory back file and pci_dimm beforehand | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 | Reporter: | Min Deng <mdeng> |
Component: | qemu-kvm-rhev | Assignee: | Igor Mammedov <imammedo> |
Status: | CLOSED DUPLICATE | QA Contact: | Virtualization Bugs <virt-bugs> |
Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | high | ||
Version: | 7.4 | CC: | chayang, dgibson, imammedo, juzhang, knoel, michen, qzhang, virt-maint, yuhuang |
Target Milestone: | rc | Keywords: | Reopened |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Unspecified | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2017-04-06 07:13:47 UTC | Type: | Bug |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Min Deng
2017-03-15 03:27:27 UTC
In my view, this bug might be duplicate of bz1245892 [1]. [1]Bug 1245892 - hot-unhotplug guest memory fail most of the time because it is in use Hi Igor, Could you please help clarify ? Thanks! memory backend is not removable until dimm it's linked to is removed, so one should not try to remove it untill 'device_del dimmX' gets confirmation (i.e. DEVICE_DELETED event) since device_del is async op and it's upto guest to decide if it can be removed or not. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1245892 *** (In reply to Igor Mammedov from comment #3) > memory backend is not removable until dimm it's linked to is removed, so one > should not try to remove it untill 'device_del dimmX' gets confirmation > (i.e. DEVICE_DELETED event) since device_del is async op and it's upto guest > to decide > if it can be removed or not. > > *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1245892 *** Thanks for your reply.As far as QE know the implementation mechanism are different for x86 and power,if I was wrong please correct me. Thus the bug should not be marked as duplicated simply from QE's opinions.In case of any potential risks I just open it for further investigation on power platform.Thanks a lot. Best Regards Min Min, Sorry for the delay. I'm not really sure what your question is. I think Igor is probably right and this is due to the Power variant of bug 1245892, but that is a bit difficult to confirm until we have a fix for that bug. (In reply to David Gibson from comment #5) > Min, > > Sorry for the delay. I'm not really sure what your question is. > > I think Igor is probably right and this is due to the Power variant of bug > 1245892, but that is a bit difficult to confirm until we have a fix for that > bug. QE get your points and close it now. Thanks Min *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1245892 *** |