Re: [PATCH for-4.12 v2 2/2] xen/arm: Stop relocating Xen

[Andrii Anisov <andrii.anisov@gmail.com>]

Hello Julien,

On 17.12.18 19:34, Andrii Anisov wrote:
> I see something like following as a quick WA (not even build tested):
> 
> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c b/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c
> index d2c63a8..bf72ba9 100644
> --- a/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c
> @@ -223,8 +223,9 @@ fail:
>    * meet these requirements directly. So instead of proceed as follows:
>    *
>    * We first allocate the largest allocation we can as low as we
> - * can. This then becomes the first bank. This bank must be at least
> - * 128MB (or dom0_mem if that is smaller).
> + * can. This then becomes the first bank. This bank is at least 128MB even if
> + * dom0 is configured for less. It is the way to get that bank 128MB aligned,
> + * what is required for 32-bit zImage.
>    *
>    * Then we start allocating more memory, trying to allocate the
>    * largest possible size and trying smaller sizes until we
> @@ -253,7 +254,7 @@ static void __init allocate_memory_11(struct domain *d,
>                                         struct kernel_info *kinfo)
>   {
>       const unsigned int min_low_order =
> -        get_order_from_bytes(min_t(paddr_t, dom0_mem, MB(128)));
> +        get_order_from_bytes(MB(128));
>       const unsigned int min_order = get_order_from_bytes(MB(4));
>       struct page_info *pg;
>       unsigned int order = get_allocation_size(kinfo->unassigned_mem);
> @@ -268,6 +269,10 @@ static void __init allocate_memory_11(struct domain *d,
>        */
>       BUG_ON(!is_domain_direct_mapped(d));
> 
> +    if ( dom0_mem < MB(128))
> +        printk(XENLOG_WARNING "Allocating 128MB for Domain0 with %"PRIu64"MB\n",
> +               dom0_mem/MB(1));
> +
>       printk("Allocating 1:1 mappings totalling %ldMB for dom0:\n",
>              /* Don't want format this as PRIpaddr (16 digit hex) */
>              (unsigned long)(kinfo->unassigned_mem >> 20));
> 
> 
> But I'm not sure if it worth to be sent, because I'm going to rewrite it soon.

 From the second thought, we have last posting date for 4.12 already in the past. So redesign will not go to 4.12.
Maybe it worth to have the thing above as a bugfix for 4.12?
What do you think?

-- 
Sincerely,
Andrii Anisov.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel