On ven, 2014-07-18 at 01:50 -0400, Elena Ufimtseva wrote: > diff --git a/xen/common/domain.c b/xen/common/domain.c > index cd64aea..895584a 100644 > @@ -297,6 +297,144 @@ int vcpuaffinity_params_invalid(const xen_domctl_vcpuaffinity_t *vcpuaff) > guest_handle_is_null(vcpuaff->cpumap_soft.bitmap)); > } > > +/* > + * Allocates memory for vNUMA, **vnuma should be NULL. > + * Caller has to make sure that domain has max_pages > + * and number of vcpus set for domain. > + * Verifies that single allocation does not exceed > + * PAGE_SIZE. > + */ > +static int vnuma_alloc(struct vnuma_info **vnuma, > + unsigned int nr_vnodes, > + unsigned int nr_vcpus, > + unsigned int dist_size) > +{ > + struct vnuma_info *v; > + > + if ( vnuma && *vnuma ) > + return -EINVAL; > + > + v = *vnuma; > Do you need this? What for? > + /* > + * check if any of xmallocs exeeds PAGE_SIZE. > + * If yes, consider it as an error for now. > Do you mind elaborating a bit more on the 'for now'? Why 'for now'? What's the plan for the future, etc. ... > + */ > + if ( nr_vnodes > PAGE_SIZE / sizeof(nr_vnodes) || > + nr_vcpus > PAGE_SIZE / sizeof(nr_vcpus) || > + nr_vnodes > PAGE_SIZE / sizeof(struct vmemrange) || > + dist_size > PAGE_SIZE / sizeof(dist_size) ) > + return -EINVAL; > + > + v = xzalloc(struct vnuma_info); > + if ( !v ) > + return -ENOMEM; > + > + v->vdistance = xmalloc_array(unsigned int, dist_size); > + v->vmemrange = xmalloc_array(vmemrange_t, nr_vnodes); > + v->vcpu_to_vnode = xmalloc_array(unsigned int, nr_vcpus); > + v->vnode_to_pnode = xmalloc_array(unsigned int, nr_vnodes); > + > + if ( v->vdistance == NULL || v->vmemrange == NULL || > + v->vcpu_to_vnode == NULL || v->vnode_to_pnode == NULL ) > + { > + vnuma_destroy(v); > + return -ENOMEM; > + } > + > + *vnuma = v; > + > + return 0; > +} > + > +/* > + * Allocate memory and construct one vNUMA node, > + * set default parameters, assign all memory and > + * vcpus to this node, set distance to 10. > + */ > +static long vnuma_fallback(const struct domain *d, > + struct vnuma_info **vnuma) > +{ > + I think I agree with Wei, about this fallback not being necessary. > +/* > + * construct vNUMA topology form u_vnuma struct and return > + * it in dst. > + */ > +long vnuma_init(const struct xen_domctl_vnuma *u_vnuma, > + const struct domain *d, > + struct vnuma_info **dst) > +{ > + unsigned int dist_size, nr_vnodes = 0; > + long ret; > + struct vnuma_info *v = NULL; > + > + ret = -EINVAL; > + Why not initialize 'ret' while defining it? > + /* If vNUMA topology already set, just exit. */ > + if ( !u_vnuma || *dst ) > + return ret; > + > + nr_vnodes = u_vnuma->nr_vnodes; > + > + if ( nr_vnodes == 0 ) > + return ret; > + > + if ( nr_vnodes > (UINT_MAX / nr_vnodes) ) > + return ret; > + Mmmm, do we perhaps want to #define a maximum number of supported vitual node, put it somewhere in an header, and use it for the check? I mean something like what we have for the host (in that case, it's called MAX_NUMNODES). I mean, if UINT_MAX is 2^64, would it make sense to allow a 2^32 nodes guest? > + dist_size = nr_vnodes * nr_vnodes; > + > + ret = vnuma_alloc(&v, nr_vnodes, d->max_vcpus, dist_size); > + if ( ret ) > + return ret; > + > + /* On failure, set only one vNUMA node and its success. */ > + ret = 0; > + > + if ( copy_from_guest(v->vdistance, u_vnuma->vdistance, dist_size) ) > + goto vnuma_onenode; > + if ( copy_from_guest(v->vmemrange, u_vnuma->vmemrange, nr_vnodes) ) > + goto vnuma_onenode; > + if ( copy_from_guest(v->vcpu_to_vnode, u_vnuma->vcpu_to_vnode, > + d->max_vcpus) ) > + goto vnuma_onenode; > + if ( copy_from_guest(v->vnode_to_pnode, u_vnuma->vnode_to_pnode, > + nr_vnodes) ) > + goto vnuma_onenode; > + > + v->nr_vnodes = nr_vnodes; > + *dst = v; > + > + return ret; > + > +vnuma_onenode: > + vnuma_destroy(v); > + return vnuma_fallback(d, dst); > As said, just report the error and bail in this case. > +} > + > long do_domctl(XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(xen_domctl_t) u_domctl) > { > long ret = 0; > @@ -967,6 +1105,35 @@ long do_domctl(XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(xen_domctl_t) u_domctl) > } > break; > > + case XEN_DOMCTL_setvnumainfo: > + { > + struct vnuma_info *v = NULL; > + > + ret = -EFAULT; > + if ( guest_handle_is_null(op->u.vnuma.vdistance) || > + guest_handle_is_null(op->u.vnuma.vmemrange) || > + guest_handle_is_null(op->u.vnuma.vcpu_to_vnode) || > + guest_handle_is_null(op->u.vnuma.vnode_to_pnode) ) > + return ret; > + > + ret = -EINVAL; > + > + ret = vnuma_init(&op->u.vnuma, d, &v); > Rather pointless 'ret=-EINVAL', I would say. :-) > + if ( ret < 0 || v == NULL ) > + break; > + > + /* overwrite vnuma for domain */ > + if ( !d->vnuma ) > + vnuma_destroy(d->vnuma); > + > + domain_lock(d); > + d->vnuma = v; > + domain_unlock(d); > + > + ret = 0; > + } > + break; > + > default: > ret = arch_do_domctl(op, d, u_domctl); > break; Regards, Dario -- <> (Raistlin Majere) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)