Re: [RFC][PATCH 10/13] tools: extend XENMEM_set_memory_map

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com>]

>>> On 15.05.15 at 09:09, <tiejun.chen@intel.com> wrote:
> On 2015/5/15 14:16, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 15.05.15 at 04:57, <tiejun.chen@intel.com> wrote:
>>> On 2015/4/20 21:51, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10.04.15 at 11:22, <tiejun.chen@intel.com> wrote:
>>>>> --- a/tools/libxl/libxl_dom.c
>>>>> +++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_dom.c
>>>>> @@ -787,6 +787,70 @@ out:
>>>>>        return rc;
>>>>>    }
>>>>>
>>>>> +static int libxl__domain_construct_memmap(libxl_ctx *ctx,
>>>>> +                                          libxl_domain_config *d_config,
>>>>> +                                          uint32_t domid,
>>>>> +                                          struct xc_hvm_build_args *args,
>>>>> +                                          int num_pcidevs,
>>>>> +                                          libxl_device_pci *pcidevs)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +    unsigned int nr = 0, i;
>>>>> +    /* We always own at least one lowmem entry. */
>>>>> +    unsigned int e820_entries = 1;
>>>>> +    uint64_t highmem_end = 0, highmem_size = args->mem_size - args->lowmem_size;
>>>>> +    struct e820entry *e820 = NULL;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    /* Add all rdm entries. */
>>>>> +    e820_entries += d_config->num_rdms;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    /* If we should have a highmem range. */
>>>>> +    if (highmem_size)
>>>>> +    {
>>>>> +        highmem_end = (1ull<<32) + highmem_size;
>>>>> +        e820_entries++;
>>>>> +    }
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    e820 = malloc(sizeof(struct e820entry) * e820_entries);
>>>>> +    if (!e820) {
>>>>> +        return -1;
>>>>> +    }
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    /* Low memory */
>>>>> +    e820[nr].addr = 0x100000;
>>>>> +    e820[nr].size = args->lowmem_size - 0x100000;
>>>>> +    e820[nr].type = E820_RAM;
>>>>
>>>> If you really mean it to be this lax (not covering the low 1Mb), then
>>>> you need to explain why in a comment (and the consuming side
>>>> should also have a similar explanation then).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Okay, here may need this,
>>>
>>> /*
>>>
>>>    * Low RAM starts at least from 1M to make sure all standard regions
>>>
>>>    * of the PC memory map, like BIOS, VGA memory-mapped I/O and vgabios,
>>>
>>>    * have enough space.
>>>    */
>>> #define GUEST_LOW_MEM_START_DEFAULT 0x100000
>>
>> But this only states a generic fact, but doesn't explain why you can
>> lump together all the different things below 1Mb into a single E820
>> entry.
> 
> I'm not sure if I'm misleading you. All different things below 1M is not 
> in a single entry. Here we just construct these mappings:
> 
> #1. [1M, lowmem_end]
> #2. [RDM]
> #3. [4G, highmem_end]
> 
> Those stuffs below 1M are still constructed with multiple e820 entries 
> by hvmloader. At this point I don't change anything.

Then _that_ is what the comment needs to say.

>>>>> +    nr++;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    /* RDM mapping */
>>>>> +    for (i = 0; i < d_config->num_rdms; i++) {
>>>>> +        /*
>>>>> +         * We should drop this kind of rdm entry.
>>>>> +         */
>>>>> +        if (d_config->rdms[i].flag == LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_FLAG_INVALID)
>>>>> +            continue;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +        e820[nr].addr = d_config->rdms[i].start;
>>>>> +        e820[nr].size = d_config->rdms[i].size;
>>>>> +        e820[nr].type = E820_RESERVED;
>>>>> +        nr++;
>>>>> +    }
>>>>
>>>> Is this guaranteed not to produce overlapping entries?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right, I would add this at the beginning,
>>>
>>>       if (e820_entries >= E820MAX) {
>>>           LOG(ERROR, "Ooops! Too many entries in the memory map!\n");
>>>           return -1;
>>>       }
>>
>> That would be a protection against too many entries, but not against
>> overlapping ones.
>>
> 
> Are you saying these kinds of mapping?
> 
> #1. [1M, lowmem_end]
> #2. [RDM]
> #3. [4G, highmem_end]
> 
> Before we call this function we already finish handling RDM with our 
> policy. This means there's no any overlapping here.

That would be fine then. Note what I had asked: "Is this guaranteed
not to produce overlapping entries?" I.e. if it is guaranteed (which
afaict isn't obvious from the code itself), then please again say why
in a brief comment.

Jan