* [v10][PATCH 00/16] Fix RMRR
@ 2015-07-20 6:16 Tiejun Chen
2015-07-20 6:16 ` [v10][PATCH 01/16] xen: introduce XENMEM_reserved_device_memory_map Tiejun Chen
` (16 more replies)
0 siblings, 17 replies; 74+ messages in thread
From: Tiejun Chen @ 2015-07-20 6:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xen-devel
v10:
* Patch #6: hvmloader/pci: Try to avoid placing BARs in RMRRs
This is from George' draft patch which implements an acceptable
solution in current cycle. Here I just implemented check_overlap_all() and
some cleanups.
* Patch #7: hvmloader/e820: construct guest e820 table
Instead of correcting e820, I'd like to correct memory_map.map[]
and then copy them into e820 directly. I think this can make sure
hvm_info, memory_map.map[] and e820 are on the same page.
v9:
* Patch #3: xen/passthrough: extend hypercall to support rdm reservation policy
Correct one check condition of XEN_DOMCTL_DEV_RDM_RELAXED
* Patch #5: hvmloader: get guest memory map into memory_map[]
Correct the patch head description:
[RESERVED_MEMORY_DYNAMIC_START, RESERVED_MEMORY_DYNAMIC_END]
-> [RESERVED_MEMORY_DYNAMIC_START, RESERVED_MEMORY_DYNAMIC_END);
Merge two if{} as one if{};
* Patch #6: hvmloader/pci: disable all pci devices conflicting with rdm
A little improvement to code implementation but again, its still argued
about this solution. Myself prefer to take a look at v7 if possible.
* Patch #7: hvmloader/e820: construct guest e820 table
Refine that chunk of codes to check/modify highmem
* Patch #15: xen/vtd: prevent from assign the device with shared rmrr
Correct one indentation issue
v8:
* Patch #3: xen/passthrough: extend hypercall to support rdm reservation policy
Force to pass "0"(strict) when add or move a device in hardware domain,
and improve some associated code comments.
* Patch #5: hvmloader: get guest memory map into memory_map[]
Actually we should check this range started from
RESERVED_MEMORY_DYNAMIC_START, not RESERVED_MEMORY_DYNAMIC_START - 1.
So correct this and sync the patch head description.
* Patch #6: hvmloader/pci: disable all pci devices conflicting
We have a big change to this patch:
Based on current discussion its hard to reshape the original mmio
allocation mechanism but we haven't a good and simple way to in short term.
So instead, we don't bring more complicated to intervene that process but
still check any conflicts to disable all associated devices.
I know this is still argumented but I'd like to discuss this based on this
revision and thanks for your time.
* Patch #7: hvmloader/e820: construct guest e820 table
define low_mem_end as uint32_t;
Correct those two wrong loops, memory_map.nr_map -> nr
when we're trying to revise low/high memory e820 entries;
Improve code comments and the patch head description;
Add one check if highmem is just populated by hvmloader itself
* Patch #11: tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM
Introduce pfn_to_paddr(x) -> ((uint64_t)x << XC_PAGE_SHIFT)
and set_rdm_entries() to factor out current codes.
* Patch #13: libxl: construct e820 map with RDM information for HVM guest
make that core construction function as arch-specific to make sure
we don't break ARM at this point.
* Patch #15: xen/vtd: prevent from assign the device with shared rmrr
Merge two if{} as one if{};
Add to print RMRR range info when stop assign a group device
* Some minimal code style changes
v7:
* Need to rename some parameters:
In the xl rdm config parsing, `reserve=' should be `policy='.
In the xl pci config parsing, `rdm_reserve=' should be `rdm_policy='.
The type `libxl_rdm_reserve_flag' should be `libxl_rdm_policy'.
The field name `reserve' in `libxl_rdm_reserve' should be `policy'.
* Just sync with the fallout of renaming parameters above.
Note I also mask patch #10 Acked by Wei Liu, Ian Jackson and Ian
Campbell. ( If I'm wrong just let me know at this point. ) And
as we discussed I'd further improve something as next step after
this round of review.
v6:
* Inside patch #01, add a comments to the nr_entries field inside
xen_reserved_device_memory_map. Note this is from Jan.
* Inside patch #10, we need rename something to make our policy reasonable
"type" -> "strategy"
"none" -> "ignore"
and based on our discussion, we won't expose "ignore" in xl level and just
keep that as a default, and then sync docs and the patch head description
* Inside patch #10, we fix some code stypes and especially we refine
libxl__xc_device_get_rdm()
* Inside patch #16, we need to sync those renames introduced by patch #10.
v5:
* Fold our original patch #2 and #3 as this new, and here
introduce a new, clear_identity_p2m_entry, which can wrapper
guest_physmap_remove_page(). And we use this to clean our
identity mapping.
* Just leave one bit XEN_DOMCTL_DEV_RDM_RELAXED as our policy flag, so
now "0" means "strict" and "1" means "relaxed", and also make DT device
ignore the flag field simply. And then correct all associated code
comments.
* Just make sure the per-device plicy always override the global policy,
and so cleanup some associated comments and the patch head description.
* Improve some descriptions in doc.
* Make all rdm variables specific to .hvm
* Inside patch #6, we're trying to rename that field, is_64bar, inside struct
bars with flag, and then extend to also indicate if this bar is already
allocated.
* Inside patch 11, Rename xc_device_get_rdm() with libxl__xc_device_get_rdm(),
and then replace malloc() with libxl__malloc(), and finally cleanup this fallout.
libxl__xc_device_get_rdm() should return proper libxl error code, ERROR_FAIL.
Then instead, the allocated RDM entries would be returned with an out parameter.
* The original patch #13 is sent out separately since actually this is not related
to RMRR.
v4:
* Change one condition inside patch #2, "xen/x86/p2m: introduce
set_identity_p2m_entry",
if ( p2mt == p2m_invalid || p2mt == p2m_mmio_dm )
to make sure we just catch our requirement.
* Inside patch #3, "xen/vtd: create RMRR mapping",
Instead of intel_iommu_unmap_page(), we should use
guest_physmap_remove_page() to unmap rmrr mapping correctly. And drop
iommu_map_page() since actually ept_set_entry() can do this
internally.
* Inside patch #4, "xen/passthrough: extend hypercall to support rdm
reservation policy", add code comments to describer why we fix to set a
policy flag in some cases like adding a device to hwdomain, and removing
a device from user domain. And fix one judging condition
domctl->u.assign_device.flag == XEN_DOMCTL_DEV_NO_RDM
-> domctl->u.assign_device.flag != XEN_DOMCTL_DEV_NO_RDM
Additionally, also add to range check the flag passed to make future
extensions possible (and to avoid ambiguity on what out of range values
would mean).
* Inside patch #6, "hvmloader: get guest memory map into memory_map[]", we
move some codes related to e820 to that specific file, e820.c, and consolidate
"printf()+BUG()" and "BUG_ON()", and also avoid another fixed width type for
the parameter of get_mem_mapping_layout()
* Inside patch #7, "hvmloader/pci: skip reserved ranges"
We have to re-design this as follows:
#1. Goal
MMIO region should exclude all reserved device memory
#2. Requirements
#2.1 Still need to make sure MMIO region is fit all pci devices as before
#2.2 Accommodate the not aligned reserved memory regions
If I'm missing something let me know.
#3. How to
#3.1 Address #2.1
We need to either of populating more RAM, or of expanding more highmem. But
we should know just 64bit-bar can work with highmem, and as you mentioned we
also should avoid expanding highmem as possible. So my implementation is to
allocate 32bit-bar and 64bit-bar orderly.
1>. The first allocation round just to 32bit-bar
If we can finish allocating all 32bit-bar, we just go to allocate 64bit-bar
with all remaining resources including low pci memory.
If not, we need to calculate how much RAM should be populated to allocate the
remaining 32bit-bars, then populate sufficient RAM as exp_mem_resource to go
to the second allocation round 2>.
2>. The second allocation round to the remaining 32bit-bar
We should can finish allocating all 32bit-bar in theory, then go to the third
allocation round 3>.
3>. The third allocation round to 64bit-bar
We'll try to first allocate from the remaining low memory resource. If that
isn't enough, we try to expand highmem to allocate for 64bit-bar. This process
should be same as the original.
#3.2 Address #2.2
I'm trying to accommodate the not aligned reserved memory regions:
We should skip all reserved device memory, but we also need to check if other
smaller bars can be allocated if a mmio hole exists between resource->base and
reserved device memory. If a hole exists between base and reserved device
memory, lets go out simply to try allocate for next bar since all bars are in
descending order of size. If not, we need to move resource->base to reserved_end
just to reallocate this bar
* Inside of patch #8, "hvmloader/e820: construct guest e820 table", we need to
adjust highmme if lowmem is changed such as hvmloader has to populate more
RAM to allocate bars.
* Inside of patch #11, "tools: introduce some new parameters to set rdm policy",
we don't define init_val for for libxl_rdm_reserve_type since its just zero,
and grab those changes to xl/libxlu to as a final patch.
* Inside of patch #12, "passes rdm reservation policy", fix one typo,
s/unkwon/unknown. And in command description, we should use "[]" to indicate
it's optional for that extended xl command, pci-attach.
* Patch #13 is separated from current patch #14 since this is specific to xc.
* Inside of patch #14, "tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM", and
just unconditionally set *nr_entries to 0. And additionally, we grab to all
stuffs to provide a parameter to set our predefined boundary dynamically to as
a separated patch later
* Inside of patch #16, "tools/libxl: extend XENMEM_set_memory_map", we use
goto style error handling, and instead of NOGC, we shoud use
libxl__malloc(gc,XXX) to allocate local e820.
Overall, we refined several the patch head descriptions and code comments.
v3:
* Rearrange all patches orderly as Wei suggested
* Rebase on the latest tree
* Address some Wei's comments on tools side
* Two changes for runtime cycle
patch #2,xen/x86/p2m: introduce set_identity_p2m_entry, on hypervisor side
a>. Introduce paging_mode_translate()
Otherwise, we'll see this error when boot Xen/Dom0
(XEN) Assertion 'paging_mode_translate(p2m->domain)' failed at p2m-pt.c:702
(XEN) ----[ Xen-4.6-unstable x86_64 debug=y Tainted: C ]----
....
(XEN) Xen call trace:
(XEN) [<ffff82d0801f53db>] p2m_pt_get_entry+0x29/0x558
(XEN) [<ffff82d0801f0b5c>] set_identity_p2m_entry+0xfc/0x1f0
(XEN) [<ffff82d08014ebc8>] rmrr_identity_mapping+0x154/0x1ce
(XEN) [<ffff82d0802abb46>] intel_iommu_hwdom_init+0x76/0x158
(XEN) [<ffff82d0802ab169>] iommu_hwdom_init+0x179/0x188
(XEN) [<ffff82d0802cc608>] construct_dom0+0x2fed/0x35d8
(XEN) [<ffff82d0802bdaa0>] __start_xen+0x22d8/0x2381
(XEN) [<ffff82d080100067>] __high_start+0x53/0x55
(XEN)
(XEN)
(XEN) ****************************************
(XEN) Panic on CPU 0:
(XEN) Assertion 'paging_mode_translate(p2m->domain)' failed at p2m-pt.c:702
Note I don't copy all info since I think the above is enough.
b>. Actually we still need to use "mfn_x(mfn) == INVALID_MFN" to confirm
we're getting an invalid mfn.
* Add patch #16 to handle those devices which share same RMRR.
v2:
* Instead of that fixed predefined rdm memory boundary, we'd like to
introduce a parameter, "rdm_mem_boundary", to set this threshold value.
* Remove that existing USB hack.
* Make sure the MMIO regions all fit in the available resource window
* Rename our policy, "force/try" -> "strict/relaxed"
* Indeed, Wei and Jan gave me more and more comments to refine codes
* Code style
* Better and reasonable code implementation
* Correct or improve code comments.
* A little bit to work well with ARM.
Open:
* We should fail assigning device which has a shared RMRR with
another device. We can only do group assignment when RMRR is shared
among devices.
We need more time to figure a good policy/way out because something
is not clear to me.
As you know all devices are owned by Dom0 firstly before we create any
DomU, right? Do we allow Dom0 still own a group device while assign another
device in the same group?
Really appreciate any comments to policy.
v1:
RMRR is an acronym for Reserved Memory Region Reporting, expected to
be used for legacy usages (such as USB, UMA Graphics, etc.) requiring
reserved memory. Special treatment is required in system software to
setup those reserved regions in IOMMU translation structures, otherwise
passing through a device with RMRR reported may not work correctly.
This patch set tries to enhance existing Xen RMRR implementation to fix
various reported and theoretical problems. Most noteworthy changes are
to setup identity mapping in p2m layer and handle possible conflicts between
reported regions and gfn space. Initial proposal can be found at:
http://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2015-01/msg00524.html
and after a long discussion a summarized agreement is here:
http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2015-01/msg01580.html
Below is a key summary of this patch set according to agreed proposal:
1. Use RDM (Reserved Device Memory) name in user space as a general
description instead of using ACPI RMRR name directly.
2. Introduce configuration parameters to allow user control both per-device
and global RDM resources along with desired policies upon a detected conflict.
3. Introduce a new hypercall to query global and per-device RDM resources.
4. Extend libxl to be a central place to manage RDM resources and handle
potential conflicts between reserved regions and gfn space. One simplification
goal is made to keep existing lowmem / mmio / highmem layout which is
passed around various function blocks. So a reasonable assumption
is made, that conflicts falling into below areas are not re-arranged otherwise
it will result in a more scattered layout:
a) in highmem region (>4G)
b) in lowmem region, and below a predefined boundary (default 2G)
a) is a new assumption not discussed before. From VT-d spec this is
possible but no such observation in real-world. So we can make this
reasonable assumption until there's real usage on it.
5. Extend XENMEM_set_memory_map usable for HVM guest, and then have
libxl to use that hypercall to carry RDM information to hvmloader. There
is one difference from original discussion. Previously we discussed to
introduce a new E820 type specifically for RDM entries. After more thought
we think it's OK to just tag them as E820_reserved. Actually hvmloader
doesn't need to know whether the reserved entries come from RDM or
from other purposes.
6. Then in hvmloader the change is generic for XENMEM_memory_map
change. Given a predefined memory layout, hvmloader should avoid
allocating all reserved entries for other usages (opregion, mmio, etc.)
7. Extend existing device passthrough hypercall to carry conflict handling
policy.
8. Setup identity map in p2m layer for RMRRs reported for the given
device. And conflicts are handled according to specified policy in hypercall.
Current patch set contains core enhancements calling for comments.
There are still several tasks not implemented now. We'll include them
in final version after RFC is agreed:
- remove existing USB hack
- detect and fail assigning device which has a shared RMRR with another device
- add a config parameter to configure that memory boundary flexibly
- In the case of hotplug we also need to figure out a way to fix that policy
conflict between the per-pci policy and the global policy but firstly we think
we'd better collect some good or correct ideas to step next in RFC.
So here I made this as RFC to collect your any comments.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jan Beulich (1):
xen: introduce XENMEM_reserved_device_memory_map
Tiejun Chen (15):
xen/vtd: create RMRR mapping
xen/passthrough: extend hypercall to support rdm reservation policy
xen: enable XENMEM_memory_map in hvm
hvmloader: get guest memory map into memory_map[]
hvmloader/pci: skip reserved ranges
hvmloader/e820: construct guest e820 table
tools/libxc: Expose new hypercall xc_reserved_device_memory_map
tools: extend xc_assign_device() to support rdm reservation policy
tools: introduce some new parameters to set rdm policy
tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM
tools: introduce a new parameter to set a predefined rdm boundary
libxl: construct e820 map with RDM information for HVM guest
xen/vtd: enable USB device assignment
xen/vtd: prevent from assign the device with shared rmrr
tools: parse to enable new rdm policy parameters
Jan Beulich (1):
xen: introduce XENMEM_reserved_device_memory_map
docs/man/xl.cfg.pod.5 | 103 ++++++++
docs/misc/vtd.txt | 24 ++
tools/firmware/hvmloader/e820.c | 140 +++++++++-
tools/firmware/hvmloader/e820.h | 7 +
tools/firmware/hvmloader/hvmloader.c | 2 +
tools/firmware/hvmloader/pci.c | 62 +++++
tools/firmware/hvmloader/util.c | 26 ++
tools/firmware/hvmloader/util.h | 12 +
tools/libxc/include/xenctrl.h | 11 +-
tools/libxc/xc_domain.c | 45 +++-
tools/libxl/libxl.h | 6 +
tools/libxl/libxl_arch.h | 7 +
tools/libxl/libxl_arm.c | 8 +
tools/libxl/libxl_create.c | 13 +-
tools/libxl/libxl_dm.c | 273 ++++++++++++++++++++
tools/libxl/libxl_dom.c | 16 +-
tools/libxl/libxl_internal.h | 13 +-
tools/libxl/libxl_pci.c | 12 +-
tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl | 26 ++
tools/libxl/libxl_x86.c | 83 ++++++
tools/libxl/libxlu_pci.c | 92 ++++++-
tools/libxl/libxlutil.h | 4 +
tools/libxl/xl_cmdimpl.c | 16 ++
tools/ocaml/libs/xc/xenctrl_stubs.c | 16 +-
tools/python/xen/lowlevel/xc/xc.c | 30 ++-
xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c | 2 -
xen/arch/x86/mm.c | 6 -
xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c | 43 ++-
xen/common/compat/memory.c | 66 +++++
xen/common/memory.c | 64 +++++
xen/drivers/passthrough/amd/pci_amd_iommu.c | 3 +-
xen/drivers/passthrough/arm/smmu.c | 2 +-
xen/drivers/passthrough/device_tree.c | 3 +-
xen/drivers/passthrough/iommu.c | 10 +
xen/drivers/passthrough/pci.c | 15 +-
xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/dmar.c | 32 +++
xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/dmar.h | 1 -
xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/extern.h | 1 +
xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c | 82 ++++--
xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/utils.c | 7 -
xen/include/asm-x86/p2m.h | 13 +-
xen/include/public/domctl.h | 3 +
xen/include/public/memory.h | 37 ++-
xen/include/xen/iommu.h | 12 +-
xen/include/xen/pci.h | 2 +
xen/include/xlat.lst | 3 +-
46 files changed, 1367 insertions(+), 87 deletions(-)
Thanks
Tiejun
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* [v10][PATCH 01/16] xen: introduce XENMEM_reserved_device_memory_map
2015-07-20 6:16 [v10][PATCH 00/16] Fix RMRR Tiejun Chen
@ 2015-07-20 6:16 ` Tiejun Chen
2015-07-20 6:16 ` [v10][PATCH 02/16] xen/vtd: create RMRR mapping Tiejun Chen
` (15 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread
From: Tiejun Chen @ 2015-07-20 6:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xen-devel; +Cc: Yang Zhang, Kevin Tian, Jan Beulich
From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
This is a prerequisite for punching holes into HVM and PVH guests' P2M
to allow passing through devices that are associated with (on VT-d)
RMRRs.
CC: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
CC: Yang Zhang <yang.z.zhang@intel.com>
CC: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
Acked-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
---
v7 ~ v10:
* Nothing is changed.
v6:
* Add a comments to the nr_entries field inside xen_reserved_device_memory_map
v5 ~ v4:
* Nothing is changed.
xen/common/compat/memory.c | 66 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
xen/common/memory.c | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
xen/drivers/passthrough/iommu.c | 10 ++++++
xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/dmar.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++
xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/extern.h | 1 +
xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c | 1 +
xen/include/public/memory.h | 37 +++++++++++++++++++-
xen/include/xen/iommu.h | 10 ++++++
xen/include/xen/pci.h | 2 ++
xen/include/xlat.lst | 3 +-
10 files changed, 224 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/xen/common/compat/memory.c b/xen/common/compat/memory.c
index b258138..b608496 100644
--- a/xen/common/compat/memory.c
+++ b/xen/common/compat/memory.c
@@ -17,6 +17,45 @@ CHECK_TYPE(domid);
CHECK_mem_access_op;
CHECK_vmemrange;
+#ifdef HAS_PASSTHROUGH
+struct get_reserved_device_memory {
+ struct compat_reserved_device_memory_map map;
+ unsigned int used_entries;
+};
+
+static int get_reserved_device_memory(xen_pfn_t start, xen_ulong_t nr,
+ u32 id, void *ctxt)
+{
+ struct get_reserved_device_memory *grdm = ctxt;
+ u32 sbdf;
+ struct compat_reserved_device_memory rdm = {
+ .start_pfn = start, .nr_pages = nr
+ };
+
+ sbdf = PCI_SBDF2(grdm->map.seg, grdm->map.bus, grdm->map.devfn);
+ if ( (grdm->map.flag & PCI_DEV_RDM_ALL) || (sbdf == id) )
+ {
+ if ( grdm->used_entries < grdm->map.nr_entries )
+ {
+ if ( rdm.start_pfn != start || rdm.nr_pages != nr )
+ return -ERANGE;
+
+ if ( __copy_to_compat_offset(grdm->map.buffer,
+ grdm->used_entries,
+ &rdm,
+ 1) )
+ {
+ return -EFAULT;
+ }
+ }
+ ++grdm->used_entries;
+ return 1;
+ }
+
+ return 0;
+}
+#endif
+
int compat_memory_op(unsigned int cmd, XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) compat)
{
int split, op = cmd & MEMOP_CMD_MASK;
@@ -303,6 +342,33 @@ int compat_memory_op(unsigned int cmd, XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) compat)
break;
}
+#ifdef HAS_PASSTHROUGH
+ case XENMEM_reserved_device_memory_map:
+ {
+ struct get_reserved_device_memory grdm;
+
+ if ( copy_from_guest(&grdm.map, compat, 1) ||
+ !compat_handle_okay(grdm.map.buffer, grdm.map.nr_entries) )
+ return -EFAULT;
+
+ grdm.used_entries = 0;
+ rc = iommu_get_reserved_device_memory(get_reserved_device_memory,
+ &grdm);
+
+ if ( !rc && grdm.map.nr_entries < grdm.used_entries )
+ rc = -ENOBUFS;
+
+ grdm.map.nr_entries = grdm.used_entries;
+ if ( grdm.map.nr_entries )
+ {
+ if ( __copy_to_guest(compat, &grdm.map, 1) )
+ rc = -EFAULT;
+ }
+
+ return rc;
+ }
+#endif
+
default:
return compat_arch_memory_op(cmd, compat);
}
diff --git a/xen/common/memory.c b/xen/common/memory.c
index c84fcdd..7b6281b 100644
--- a/xen/common/memory.c
+++ b/xen/common/memory.c
@@ -748,6 +748,43 @@ static int construct_memop_from_reservation(
return 0;
}
+#ifdef HAS_PASSTHROUGH
+struct get_reserved_device_memory {
+ struct xen_reserved_device_memory_map map;
+ unsigned int used_entries;
+};
+
+static int get_reserved_device_memory(xen_pfn_t start, xen_ulong_t nr,
+ u32 id, void *ctxt)
+{
+ struct get_reserved_device_memory *grdm = ctxt;
+ u32 sbdf;
+
+ sbdf = PCI_SBDF2(grdm->map.seg, grdm->map.bus, grdm->map.devfn);
+ if ( (grdm->map.flag & PCI_DEV_RDM_ALL) || (sbdf == id) )
+ {
+ if ( grdm->used_entries < grdm->map.nr_entries )
+ {
+ struct xen_reserved_device_memory rdm = {
+ .start_pfn = start, .nr_pages = nr
+ };
+
+ if ( __copy_to_guest_offset(grdm->map.buffer,
+ grdm->used_entries,
+ &rdm,
+ 1) )
+ {
+ return -EFAULT;
+ }
+ }
+ ++grdm->used_entries;
+ return 1;
+ }
+
+ return 0;
+}
+#endif
+
long do_memory_op(unsigned long cmd, XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) arg)
{
struct domain *d;
@@ -1162,6 +1199,33 @@ long do_memory_op(unsigned long cmd, XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) arg)
break;
}
+#ifdef HAS_PASSTHROUGH
+ case XENMEM_reserved_device_memory_map:
+ {
+ struct get_reserved_device_memory grdm;
+
+ if ( copy_from_guest(&grdm.map, arg, 1) ||
+ !guest_handle_okay(grdm.map.buffer, grdm.map.nr_entries) )
+ return -EFAULT;
+
+ grdm.used_entries = 0;
+ rc = iommu_get_reserved_device_memory(get_reserved_device_memory,
+ &grdm);
+
+ if ( !rc && grdm.map.nr_entries < grdm.used_entries )
+ rc = -ENOBUFS;
+
+ grdm.map.nr_entries = grdm.used_entries;
+ if ( grdm.map.nr_entries )
+ {
+ if ( __copy_to_guest(arg, &grdm.map, 1) )
+ rc = -EFAULT;
+ }
+
+ break;
+ }
+#endif
+
default:
rc = arch_memory_op(cmd, arg);
break;
diff --git a/xen/drivers/passthrough/iommu.c b/xen/drivers/passthrough/iommu.c
index 06cb38f..0b2ef52 100644
--- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/iommu.c
+++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/iommu.c
@@ -375,6 +375,16 @@ void iommu_crash_shutdown(void)
iommu_enabled = iommu_intremap = 0;
}
+int iommu_get_reserved_device_memory(iommu_grdm_t *func, void *ctxt)
+{
+ const struct iommu_ops *ops = iommu_get_ops();
+
+ if ( !iommu_enabled || !ops->get_reserved_device_memory )
+ return 0;
+
+ return ops->get_reserved_device_memory(func, ctxt);
+}
+
bool_t iommu_has_feature(struct domain *d, enum iommu_feature feature)
{
const struct hvm_iommu *hd = domain_hvm_iommu(d);
diff --git a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/dmar.c b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/dmar.c
index 2b07be9..a730de5 100644
--- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/dmar.c
+++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/dmar.c
@@ -893,3 +893,35 @@ int platform_supports_x2apic(void)
unsigned int mask = ACPI_DMAR_INTR_REMAP | ACPI_DMAR_X2APIC_OPT_OUT;
return cpu_has_x2apic && ((dmar_flags & mask) == ACPI_DMAR_INTR_REMAP);
}
+
+int intel_iommu_get_reserved_device_memory(iommu_grdm_t *func, void *ctxt)
+{
+ struct acpi_rmrr_unit *rmrr, *rmrr_cur = NULL;
+ int rc = 0;
+ unsigned int i;
+ u16 bdf;
+
+ for_each_rmrr_device ( rmrr, bdf, i )
+ {
+ if ( rmrr != rmrr_cur )
+ {
+ rc = func(PFN_DOWN(rmrr->base_address),
+ PFN_UP(rmrr->end_address) -
+ PFN_DOWN(rmrr->base_address),
+ PCI_SBDF(rmrr->segment, bdf),
+ ctxt);
+
+ if ( unlikely(rc < 0) )
+ return rc;
+
+ if ( !rc )
+ continue;
+
+ /* Just go next. */
+ if ( rc == 1 )
+ rmrr_cur = rmrr;
+ }
+ }
+
+ return 0;
+}
diff --git a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/extern.h b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/extern.h
index 5524dba..f9ee9b0 100644
--- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/extern.h
+++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/extern.h
@@ -75,6 +75,7 @@ int domain_context_mapping_one(struct domain *domain, struct iommu *iommu,
u8 bus, u8 devfn, const struct pci_dev *);
int domain_context_unmap_one(struct domain *domain, struct iommu *iommu,
u8 bus, u8 devfn);
+int intel_iommu_get_reserved_device_memory(iommu_grdm_t *func, void *ctxt);
unsigned int io_apic_read_remap_rte(unsigned int apic, unsigned int reg);
void io_apic_write_remap_rte(unsigned int apic,
diff --git a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
index 48820ea..44ed23d 100644
--- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
+++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
@@ -2491,6 +2491,7 @@ const struct iommu_ops intel_iommu_ops = {
.crash_shutdown = vtd_crash_shutdown,
.iotlb_flush = intel_iommu_iotlb_flush,
.iotlb_flush_all = intel_iommu_iotlb_flush_all,
+ .get_reserved_device_memory = intel_iommu_get_reserved_device_memory,
.dump_p2m_table = vtd_dump_p2m_table,
};
diff --git a/xen/include/public/memory.h b/xen/include/public/memory.h
index 832559a..ac7d3da 100644
--- a/xen/include/public/memory.h
+++ b/xen/include/public/memory.h
@@ -573,7 +573,42 @@ struct xen_vnuma_topology_info {
typedef struct xen_vnuma_topology_info xen_vnuma_topology_info_t;
DEFINE_XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(xen_vnuma_topology_info_t);
-/* Next available subop number is 27 */
+/*
+ * With some legacy devices, certain guest-physical addresses cannot safely
+ * be used for other purposes, e.g. to map guest RAM. This hypercall
+ * enumerates those regions so the toolstack can avoid using them.
+ */
+#define XENMEM_reserved_device_memory_map 27
+struct xen_reserved_device_memory {
+ xen_pfn_t start_pfn;
+ xen_ulong_t nr_pages;
+};
+typedef struct xen_reserved_device_memory xen_reserved_device_memory_t;
+DEFINE_XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(xen_reserved_device_memory_t);
+
+struct xen_reserved_device_memory_map {
+ /* IN */
+ /* Currently just one bit to indicate checkng all Reserved Device Memory. */
+#define PCI_DEV_RDM_ALL 0x1
+ uint32_t flag;
+ /* IN */
+ uint16_t seg;
+ uint8_t bus;
+ uint8_t devfn;
+ /*
+ * IN/OUT
+ *
+ * Gets set to the required number of entries when too low,
+ * signaled by error code -ERANGE.
+ */
+ unsigned int nr_entries;
+ /* OUT */
+ XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(xen_reserved_device_memory_t) buffer;
+};
+typedef struct xen_reserved_device_memory_map xen_reserved_device_memory_map_t;
+DEFINE_XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(xen_reserved_device_memory_map_t);
+
+/* Next available subop number is 28 */
#endif /* __XEN_PUBLIC_MEMORY_H__ */
diff --git a/xen/include/xen/iommu.h b/xen/include/xen/iommu.h
index b30bf41..e2f584d 100644
--- a/xen/include/xen/iommu.h
+++ b/xen/include/xen/iommu.h
@@ -126,6 +126,14 @@ int iommu_do_dt_domctl(struct xen_domctl *, struct domain *,
struct page_info;
+/*
+ * Any non-zero value returned from callbacks of this type will cause the
+ * function the callback was handed to terminate its iteration. Assigning
+ * meaning of these non-zero values is left to the top level caller /
+ * callback pair.
+ */
+typedef int iommu_grdm_t(xen_pfn_t start, xen_ulong_t nr, u32 id, void *ctxt);
+
struct iommu_ops {
int (*init)(struct domain *d);
void (*hwdom_init)(struct domain *d);
@@ -157,12 +165,14 @@ struct iommu_ops {
void (*crash_shutdown)(void);
void (*iotlb_flush)(struct domain *d, unsigned long gfn, unsigned int page_count);
void (*iotlb_flush_all)(struct domain *d);
+ int (*get_reserved_device_memory)(iommu_grdm_t *, void *);
void (*dump_p2m_table)(struct domain *d);
};
void iommu_suspend(void);
void iommu_resume(void);
void iommu_crash_shutdown(void);
+int iommu_get_reserved_device_memory(iommu_grdm_t *, void *);
void iommu_share_p2m_table(struct domain *d);
diff --git a/xen/include/xen/pci.h b/xen/include/xen/pci.h
index 3908146..d176e8b 100644
--- a/xen/include/xen/pci.h
+++ b/xen/include/xen/pci.h
@@ -33,6 +33,8 @@
#define PCI_DEVFN2(bdf) ((bdf) & 0xff)
#define PCI_BDF(b,d,f) ((((b) & 0xff) << 8) | PCI_DEVFN(d,f))
#define PCI_BDF2(b,df) ((((b) & 0xff) << 8) | ((df) & 0xff))
+#define PCI_SBDF(s,bdf) (((s & 0xffff) << 16) | (bdf & 0xffff))
+#define PCI_SBDF2(s,b,df) (((s & 0xffff) << 16) | PCI_BDF2(b,df))
struct pci_dev_info {
bool_t is_extfn;
diff --git a/xen/include/xlat.lst b/xen/include/xlat.lst
index 9c9fd9a..dd23559 100644
--- a/xen/include/xlat.lst
+++ b/xen/include/xlat.lst
@@ -61,9 +61,10 @@
! memory_exchange memory.h
! memory_map memory.h
! memory_reservation memory.h
-? mem_access_op memory.h
+? mem_access_op memory.h
! pod_target memory.h
! remove_from_physmap memory.h
+! reserved_device_memory_map memory.h
? vmemrange memory.h
! vnuma_topology_info memory.h
? physdev_eoi physdev.h
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* [v10][PATCH 02/16] xen/vtd: create RMRR mapping
2015-07-20 6:16 [v10][PATCH 00/16] Fix RMRR Tiejun Chen
2015-07-20 6:16 ` [v10][PATCH 01/16] xen: introduce XENMEM_reserved_device_memory_map Tiejun Chen
@ 2015-07-20 6:16 ` Tiejun Chen
2015-07-20 6:16 ` [v10][PATCH 03/16] xen/passthrough: extend hypercall to support rdm reservation policy Tiejun Chen
` (14 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread
From: Tiejun Chen @ 2015-07-20 6:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xen-devel
Cc: Kevin Tian, Keir Fraser, Andrew Cooper, Tim Deegan, Jan Beulich,
Yang Zhang
RMRR reserved regions must be setup in the pfn space with an identity
mapping to reported mfn. However existing code has problem to setup
correct mapping when VT-d shares EPT page table, so lead to problem
when assigning devices (e.g GPU) with RMRR reported. So instead, this
patch aims to setup identity mapping in p2m layer, regardless of
whether EPT is shared or not. And we still keep creating VT-d table.
And we also need to introduce a pair of helper to create/clear this
sort of identity mapping as follows:
set_identity_p2m_entry():
If the gfn space is unoccupied, we just set the mapping. If space
is already occupied by desired identity mapping, do nothing.
Otherwise, failure is returned.
clear_identity_p2m_entry():
We just define macro to wrapper guest_physmap_remove_page() with
a returning value as necessary.
CC: Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>
CC: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
CC: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
CC: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
CC: Yang Zhang <yang.z.zhang@intel.com>
CC: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>
Acked-by: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
---
v6 ~ v10:
* Nothing is changed.
v5:
* Fold our original patch #2 and #3 as this new
* Introduce a new, clear_identity_p2m_entry, which can wrapper
guest_physmap_remove_page(). And we use this to clean our
identity mapping.
v4:
* Change that orginal condition,
if ( p2mt == p2m_invalid || p2mt == p2m_mmio_dm )
to make sure we catch those invalid mfn mapping as we expected.
* To have
if ( !paging_mode_translate(p2m->domain) )
return 0;
at the start, instead of indenting the whole body of the function
in an inner scope.
* extend guest_physmap_remove_page() to return a value as a proper
unmapping helper
* Instead of intel_iommu_unmap_page(), we should use
guest_physmap_remove_page() to unmap rmrr mapping correctly.
* Drop iommu_map_page() since actually ept_set_entry() can do this
internally.
xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c | 5 ++---
xen/include/asm-x86/p2m.h | 13 +++++++++---
3 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c
index 6b39733..99a26ca 100644
--- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c
@@ -584,14 +584,16 @@ p2m_remove_page(struct p2m_domain *p2m, unsigned long gfn, unsigned long mfn,
p2m->default_access);
}
-void
+int
guest_physmap_remove_page(struct domain *d, unsigned long gfn,
unsigned long mfn, unsigned int page_order)
{
struct p2m_domain *p2m = p2m_get_hostp2m(d);
+ int rc;
gfn_lock(p2m, gfn, page_order);
- p2m_remove_page(p2m, gfn, mfn, page_order);
+ rc = p2m_remove_page(p2m, gfn, mfn, page_order);
gfn_unlock(p2m, gfn, page_order);
+ return rc;
}
int
@@ -898,6 +900,40 @@ int set_mmio_p2m_entry(struct domain *d, unsigned long gfn, mfn_t mfn,
return set_typed_p2m_entry(d, gfn, mfn, p2m_mmio_direct, access);
}
+int set_identity_p2m_entry(struct domain *d, unsigned long gfn,
+ p2m_access_t p2ma)
+{
+ p2m_type_t p2mt;
+ p2m_access_t a;
+ mfn_t mfn;
+ struct p2m_domain *p2m = p2m_get_hostp2m(d);
+ int ret;
+
+ if ( !paging_mode_translate(p2m->domain) )
+ return 0;
+
+ gfn_lock(p2m, gfn, 0);
+
+ mfn = p2m->get_entry(p2m, gfn, &p2mt, &a, 0, NULL);
+
+ if ( p2mt == p2m_invalid || p2mt == p2m_mmio_dm )
+ ret = p2m_set_entry(p2m, gfn, _mfn(gfn), PAGE_ORDER_4K,
+ p2m_mmio_direct, p2ma);
+ else if ( mfn_x(mfn) == gfn && p2mt == p2m_mmio_direct && a == p2ma )
+ ret = 0;
+ else
+ {
+ ret = -EBUSY;
+ printk(XENLOG_G_WARNING
+ "Cannot setup identity map d%d:%lx,"
+ " gfn already mapped to %lx.\n",
+ d->domain_id, gfn, mfn_x(mfn));
+ }
+
+ gfn_unlock(p2m, gfn, 0);
+ return ret;
+}
+
/* Returns: 0 for success, -errno for failure */
int clear_mmio_p2m_entry(struct domain *d, unsigned long gfn, mfn_t mfn)
{
diff --git a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
index 44ed23d..8415958 100644
--- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
+++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
@@ -1839,7 +1839,7 @@ static int rmrr_identity_mapping(struct domain *d, bool_t map,
while ( base_pfn < end_pfn )
{
- if ( intel_iommu_unmap_page(d, base_pfn) )
+ if ( clear_identity_p2m_entry(d, base_pfn, 0) )
ret = -ENXIO;
base_pfn++;
}
@@ -1855,8 +1855,7 @@ static int rmrr_identity_mapping(struct domain *d, bool_t map,
while ( base_pfn < end_pfn )
{
- int err = intel_iommu_map_page(d, base_pfn, base_pfn,
- IOMMUF_readable|IOMMUF_writable);
+ int err = set_identity_p2m_entry(d, base_pfn, p2m_access_rw);
if ( err )
return err;
diff --git a/xen/include/asm-x86/p2m.h b/xen/include/asm-x86/p2m.h
index b49c09b..190a286 100644
--- a/xen/include/asm-x86/p2m.h
+++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/p2m.h
@@ -503,9 +503,9 @@ static inline int guest_physmap_add_page(struct domain *d,
}
/* Remove a page from a domain's p2m table */
-void guest_physmap_remove_page(struct domain *d,
- unsigned long gfn,
- unsigned long mfn, unsigned int page_order);
+int guest_physmap_remove_page(struct domain *d,
+ unsigned long gfn,
+ unsigned long mfn, unsigned int page_order);
/* Set a p2m range as populate-on-demand */
int guest_physmap_mark_populate_on_demand(struct domain *d, unsigned long gfn,
@@ -543,6 +543,13 @@ int set_mmio_p2m_entry(struct domain *d, unsigned long gfn, mfn_t mfn,
p2m_access_t access);
int clear_mmio_p2m_entry(struct domain *d, unsigned long gfn, mfn_t mfn);
+/* Set identity addresses in the p2m table (for pass-through) */
+int set_identity_p2m_entry(struct domain *d, unsigned long gfn,
+ p2m_access_t p2ma);
+
+#define clear_identity_p2m_entry(d, gfn, page_order) \
+ guest_physmap_remove_page(d, gfn, gfn, page_order)
+
/* Add foreign mapping to the guest's p2m table. */
int p2m_add_foreign(struct domain *tdom, unsigned long fgfn,
unsigned long gpfn, domid_t foreign_domid);
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* [v10][PATCH 03/16] xen/passthrough: extend hypercall to support rdm reservation policy
2015-07-20 6:16 [v10][PATCH 00/16] Fix RMRR Tiejun Chen
2015-07-20 6:16 ` [v10][PATCH 01/16] xen: introduce XENMEM_reserved_device_memory_map Tiejun Chen
2015-07-20 6:16 ` [v10][PATCH 02/16] xen/vtd: create RMRR mapping Tiejun Chen
@ 2015-07-20 6:16 ` Tiejun Chen
2015-07-20 6:16 ` [v10][PATCH 04/16] xen: enable XENMEM_memory_map in hvm Tiejun Chen
` (13 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread
From: Tiejun Chen @ 2015-07-20 6:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xen-devel
Cc: Kevin Tian, Keir Fraser, Jan Beulich, Andrew Cooper, Tim Deegan,
Aravind Gopalakrishnan, Suravee Suthikulpanit, Yang Zhang,
Stefano Stabellini, Ian Campbell
This patch extends the existing hypercall to support rdm reservation policy.
We return error or just throw out a warning message depending on whether
the policy is "strict" or "relaxed" when reserving RDM regions in pfn space.
Note in some special cases, e.g. add a device to hwdomain, and remove a
device from user domain, 'relaxed' is fine enough since this is always safe
to hwdomain.
CC: Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>
CC: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
CC: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
CC: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
CC: Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>
CC: Aravind Gopalakrishnan <Aravind.Gopalakrishnan@amd.com>
CC: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
CC: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@citrix.com>
CC: Yang Zhang <yang.z.zhang@intel.com>
CC: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
---
v10:
* Nothing is changed.
v9:
* Correct one check condition of XEN_DOMCTL_DEV_RDM_RELAXED
v8:
* Force to pass "0"(strict) when add or move a device in hardware domain,
and improve some associated code comments.
v6 ~ v7:
* Nothing is changed.
v5:
* Just leave one bit XEN_DOMCTL_DEV_RDM_RELAXED as our flag, so
"0" means "strict" and "1" means "relaxed".
* So make DT device ignore the flag field
* Improve the code comments
v4:
* Add code comments to describer why we fix to set a policy flag in some
cases like adding a device to hwdomain, and removing a device from user domain.
* Avoid using fixed width types for the parameter of set_identity_p2m_entry()
* Fix one judging condition
domctl->u.assign_device.flag == XEN_DOMCTL_DEV_NO_RDM
-> domctl->u.assign_device.flag != XEN_DOMCTL_DEV_NO_RDM
* Add to range check the flag passed to make future extensions possible
(and to avoid ambiguity on what out of range values would mean).
xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c | 7 ++++--
xen/drivers/passthrough/amd/pci_amd_iommu.c | 3 ++-
xen/drivers/passthrough/arm/smmu.c | 2 +-
xen/drivers/passthrough/device_tree.c | 3 ++-
xen/drivers/passthrough/pci.c | 15 ++++++++----
xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++-------
xen/include/asm-x86/p2m.h | 2 +-
xen/include/public/domctl.h | 3 +++
xen/include/xen/iommu.h | 2 +-
9 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c
index 99a26ca..47785dc 100644
--- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c
@@ -901,7 +901,7 @@ int set_mmio_p2m_entry(struct domain *d, unsigned long gfn, mfn_t mfn,
}
int set_identity_p2m_entry(struct domain *d, unsigned long gfn,
- p2m_access_t p2ma)
+ p2m_access_t p2ma, unsigned int flag)
{
p2m_type_t p2mt;
p2m_access_t a;
@@ -923,7 +923,10 @@ int set_identity_p2m_entry(struct domain *d, unsigned long gfn,
ret = 0;
else
{
- ret = -EBUSY;
+ if ( flag & XEN_DOMCTL_DEV_RDM_RELAXED )
+ ret = 0;
+ else
+ ret = -EBUSY;
printk(XENLOG_G_WARNING
"Cannot setup identity map d%d:%lx,"
" gfn already mapped to %lx.\n",
diff --git a/xen/drivers/passthrough/amd/pci_amd_iommu.c b/xen/drivers/passthrough/amd/pci_amd_iommu.c
index e83bb35..920b35a 100644
--- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/amd/pci_amd_iommu.c
+++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/amd/pci_amd_iommu.c
@@ -394,7 +394,8 @@ static int reassign_device(struct domain *source, struct domain *target,
}
static int amd_iommu_assign_device(struct domain *d, u8 devfn,
- struct pci_dev *pdev)
+ struct pci_dev *pdev,
+ u32 flag)
{
struct ivrs_mappings *ivrs_mappings = get_ivrs_mappings(pdev->seg);
int bdf = PCI_BDF2(pdev->bus, devfn);
diff --git a/xen/drivers/passthrough/arm/smmu.c b/xen/drivers/passthrough/arm/smmu.c
index 6cc4394..9a667e9 100644
--- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/arm/smmu.c
+++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/arm/smmu.c
@@ -2605,7 +2605,7 @@ static void arm_smmu_destroy_iommu_domain(struct iommu_domain *domain)
}
static int arm_smmu_assign_dev(struct domain *d, u8 devfn,
- struct device *dev)
+ struct device *dev, u32 flag)
{
struct iommu_domain *domain;
struct arm_smmu_xen_domain *xen_domain;
diff --git a/xen/drivers/passthrough/device_tree.c b/xen/drivers/passthrough/device_tree.c
index 5d3842a..7ff79f8 100644
--- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/device_tree.c
+++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/device_tree.c
@@ -52,7 +52,8 @@ int iommu_assign_dt_device(struct domain *d, struct dt_device_node *dev)
goto fail;
}
- rc = hd->platform_ops->assign_device(d, 0, dt_to_dev(dev));
+ /* The flag field doesn't matter to DT device. */
+ rc = hd->platform_ops->assign_device(d, 0, dt_to_dev(dev), 0);
if ( rc )
goto fail;
diff --git a/xen/drivers/passthrough/pci.c b/xen/drivers/passthrough/pci.c
index e30be43..c7bbf6e 100644
--- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/pci.c
+++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/pci.c
@@ -1335,7 +1335,7 @@ static int device_assigned(u16 seg, u8 bus, u8 devfn)
return pdev ? 0 : -EBUSY;
}
-static int assign_device(struct domain *d, u16 seg, u8 bus, u8 devfn)
+static int assign_device(struct domain *d, u16 seg, u8 bus, u8 devfn, u32 flag)
{
struct hvm_iommu *hd = domain_hvm_iommu(d);
struct pci_dev *pdev;
@@ -1371,7 +1371,7 @@ static int assign_device(struct domain *d, u16 seg, u8 bus, u8 devfn)
pdev->fault.count = 0;
- if ( (rc = hd->platform_ops->assign_device(d, devfn, pci_to_dev(pdev))) )
+ if ( (rc = hd->platform_ops->assign_device(d, devfn, pci_to_dev(pdev), flag)) )
goto done;
for ( ; pdev->phantom_stride; rc = 0 )
@@ -1379,7 +1379,7 @@ static int assign_device(struct domain *d, u16 seg, u8 bus, u8 devfn)
devfn += pdev->phantom_stride;
if ( PCI_SLOT(devfn) != PCI_SLOT(pdev->devfn) )
break;
- rc = hd->platform_ops->assign_device(d, devfn, pci_to_dev(pdev));
+ rc = hd->platform_ops->assign_device(d, devfn, pci_to_dev(pdev), flag);
if ( rc )
printk(XENLOG_G_WARNING "d%d: assign %04x:%02x:%02x.%u failed (%d)\n",
d->domain_id, seg, bus, PCI_SLOT(devfn), PCI_FUNC(devfn),
@@ -1496,6 +1496,7 @@ int iommu_do_pci_domctl(
{
u16 seg;
u8 bus, devfn;
+ u32 flag;
int ret = 0;
uint32_t machine_sbdf;
@@ -1577,9 +1578,15 @@ int iommu_do_pci_domctl(
seg = machine_sbdf >> 16;
bus = PCI_BUS(machine_sbdf);
devfn = PCI_DEVFN2(machine_sbdf);
+ flag = domctl->u.assign_device.flag;
+ if ( flag & ~XEN_DOMCTL_DEV_RDM_RELAXED )
+ {
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ break;
+ }
ret = device_assigned(seg, bus, devfn) ?:
- assign_device(d, seg, bus, devfn);
+ assign_device(d, seg, bus, devfn, flag);
if ( ret == -ERESTART )
ret = hypercall_create_continuation(__HYPERVISOR_domctl,
"h", u_domctl);
diff --git a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
index 8415958..b5d658e 100644
--- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
+++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
@@ -1807,7 +1807,8 @@ static void iommu_set_pgd(struct domain *d)
}
static int rmrr_identity_mapping(struct domain *d, bool_t map,
- const struct acpi_rmrr_unit *rmrr)
+ const struct acpi_rmrr_unit *rmrr,
+ u32 flag)
{
unsigned long base_pfn = rmrr->base_address >> PAGE_SHIFT_4K;
unsigned long end_pfn = PAGE_ALIGN_4K(rmrr->end_address) >> PAGE_SHIFT_4K;
@@ -1855,7 +1856,7 @@ static int rmrr_identity_mapping(struct domain *d, bool_t map,
while ( base_pfn < end_pfn )
{
- int err = set_identity_p2m_entry(d, base_pfn, p2m_access_rw);
+ int err = set_identity_p2m_entry(d, base_pfn, p2m_access_rw, flag);
if ( err )
return err;
@@ -1898,7 +1899,13 @@ static int intel_iommu_add_device(u8 devfn, struct pci_dev *pdev)
PCI_BUS(bdf) == pdev->bus &&
PCI_DEVFN2(bdf) == devfn )
{
- ret = rmrr_identity_mapping(pdev->domain, 1, rmrr);
+ /*
+ * iommu_add_device() is only called for the hardware
+ * domain (see xen/drivers/passthrough/pci.c:pci_add_device()).
+ * Since RMRRs are always reserved in the e820 map for the hardware
+ * domain, there shouldn't be a conflict.
+ */
+ ret = rmrr_identity_mapping(pdev->domain, 1, rmrr, 0);
if ( ret )
dprintk(XENLOG_ERR VTDPREFIX, "d%d: RMRR mapping failed\n",
pdev->domain->domain_id);
@@ -1939,7 +1946,11 @@ static int intel_iommu_remove_device(u8 devfn, struct pci_dev *pdev)
PCI_DEVFN2(bdf) != devfn )
continue;
- rmrr_identity_mapping(pdev->domain, 0, rmrr);
+ /*
+ * Any flag is nothing to clear these mappings but here
+ * its always safe and strict to set 0.
+ */
+ rmrr_identity_mapping(pdev->domain, 0, rmrr, 0);
}
return domain_context_unmap(pdev->domain, devfn, pdev);
@@ -2098,7 +2109,13 @@ static void __hwdom_init setup_hwdom_rmrr(struct domain *d)
spin_lock(&pcidevs_lock);
for_each_rmrr_device ( rmrr, bdf, i )
{
- ret = rmrr_identity_mapping(d, 1, rmrr);
+ /*
+ * Here means we're add a device to the hardware domain.
+ * Since RMRRs are always reserved in the e820 map for the hardware
+ * domain, there shouldn't be a conflict. So its always safe and
+ * strict to set 0.
+ */
+ ret = rmrr_identity_mapping(d, 1, rmrr, 0);
if ( ret )
dprintk(XENLOG_ERR VTDPREFIX,
"IOMMU: mapping reserved region failed\n");
@@ -2241,7 +2258,11 @@ static int reassign_device_ownership(
PCI_BUS(bdf) == pdev->bus &&
PCI_DEVFN2(bdf) == devfn )
{
- ret = rmrr_identity_mapping(source, 0, rmrr);
+ /*
+ * Any RMRR flag is always ignored when remove a device,
+ * but its always safe and strict to set 0.
+ */
+ ret = rmrr_identity_mapping(source, 0, rmrr, 0);
if ( ret != -ENOENT )
return ret;
}
@@ -2265,7 +2286,7 @@ static int reassign_device_ownership(
}
static int intel_iommu_assign_device(
- struct domain *d, u8 devfn, struct pci_dev *pdev)
+ struct domain *d, u8 devfn, struct pci_dev *pdev, u32 flag)
{
struct acpi_rmrr_unit *rmrr;
int ret = 0, i;
@@ -2294,7 +2315,7 @@ static int intel_iommu_assign_device(
PCI_BUS(bdf) == bus &&
PCI_DEVFN2(bdf) == devfn )
{
- ret = rmrr_identity_mapping(d, 1, rmrr);
+ ret = rmrr_identity_mapping(d, 1, rmrr, flag);
if ( ret )
{
reassign_device_ownership(d, hardware_domain, devfn, pdev);
diff --git a/xen/include/asm-x86/p2m.h b/xen/include/asm-x86/p2m.h
index 190a286..68da0a9 100644
--- a/xen/include/asm-x86/p2m.h
+++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/p2m.h
@@ -545,7 +545,7 @@ int clear_mmio_p2m_entry(struct domain *d, unsigned long gfn, mfn_t mfn);
/* Set identity addresses in the p2m table (for pass-through) */
int set_identity_p2m_entry(struct domain *d, unsigned long gfn,
- p2m_access_t p2ma);
+ p2m_access_t p2ma, unsigned int flag);
#define clear_identity_p2m_entry(d, gfn, page_order) \
guest_physmap_remove_page(d, gfn, gfn, page_order)
diff --git a/xen/include/public/domctl.h b/xen/include/public/domctl.h
index bc45ea5..bca25c9 100644
--- a/xen/include/public/domctl.h
+++ b/xen/include/public/domctl.h
@@ -478,6 +478,9 @@ struct xen_domctl_assign_device {
XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_64(char) path; /* path to the device tree node */
} dt;
} u;
+ /* IN */
+#define XEN_DOMCTL_DEV_RDM_RELAXED 1
+ uint32_t flag; /* flag of assigned device */
};
typedef struct xen_domctl_assign_device xen_domctl_assign_device_t;
DEFINE_XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(xen_domctl_assign_device_t);
diff --git a/xen/include/xen/iommu.h b/xen/include/xen/iommu.h
index e2f584d..02b2b02 100644
--- a/xen/include/xen/iommu.h
+++ b/xen/include/xen/iommu.h
@@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ struct iommu_ops {
int (*add_device)(u8 devfn, device_t *dev);
int (*enable_device)(device_t *dev);
int (*remove_device)(u8 devfn, device_t *dev);
- int (*assign_device)(struct domain *, u8 devfn, device_t *dev);
+ int (*assign_device)(struct domain *, u8 devfn, device_t *dev, u32 flag);
int (*reassign_device)(struct domain *s, struct domain *t,
u8 devfn, device_t *dev);
#ifdef HAS_PCI
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* [v10][PATCH 04/16] xen: enable XENMEM_memory_map in hvm
2015-07-20 6:16 [v10][PATCH 00/16] Fix RMRR Tiejun Chen
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2015-07-20 6:16 ` [v10][PATCH 03/16] xen/passthrough: extend hypercall to support rdm reservation policy Tiejun Chen
@ 2015-07-20 6:16 ` Tiejun Chen
2015-07-20 6:16 ` [v10][PATCH 05/16] hvmloader: get guest memory map into memory_map[] Tiejun Chen
` (12 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread
From: Tiejun Chen @ 2015-07-20 6:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xen-devel; +Cc: Andrew Cooper, Keir Fraser, Jan Beulich
This patch enables XENMEM_memory_map in hvm. So hvmloader can
use it to setup the e820 mappings.
CC: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
CC: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
CC: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Acked-by: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
---
v5 ~ v10:
* Nothing is changed.
v4:
* Just refine the patch head description as Jan commented.
xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c | 2 --
xen/arch/x86/mm.c | 6 ------
2 files changed, 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
index 535d622..638daee 100644
--- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
@@ -4741,7 +4741,6 @@ static long hvm_memory_op(int cmd, XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) arg)
switch ( cmd & MEMOP_CMD_MASK )
{
- case XENMEM_memory_map:
case XENMEM_machine_memory_map:
case XENMEM_machphys_mapping:
return -ENOSYS;
@@ -4817,7 +4816,6 @@ static long hvm_memory_op_compat32(int cmd, XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) arg)
switch ( cmd & MEMOP_CMD_MASK )
{
- case XENMEM_memory_map:
case XENMEM_machine_memory_map:
case XENMEM_machphys_mapping:
return -ENOSYS;
diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/mm.c b/xen/arch/x86/mm.c
index fd151c6..92eccd0 100644
--- a/xen/arch/x86/mm.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm.c
@@ -4717,12 +4717,6 @@ long arch_memory_op(unsigned long cmd, XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) arg)
return rc;
}
- if ( is_hvm_domain(d) )
- {
- rcu_unlock_domain(d);
- return -EPERM;
- }
-
e820 = xmalloc_array(e820entry_t, fmap.map.nr_entries);
if ( e820 == NULL )
{
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* [v10][PATCH 05/16] hvmloader: get guest memory map into memory_map[]
2015-07-20 6:16 [v10][PATCH 00/16] Fix RMRR Tiejun Chen
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2015-07-20 6:16 ` [v10][PATCH 04/16] xen: enable XENMEM_memory_map in hvm Tiejun Chen
@ 2015-07-20 6:16 ` Tiejun Chen
2015-07-20 6:16 ` [v10][PATCH 06/16] hvmloader/pci: Try to avoid placing BARs in RMRRs Tiejun Chen
` (11 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread
From: Tiejun Chen @ 2015-07-20 6:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xen-devel
Cc: Keir Fraser, Ian Campbell, Stefano Stabellini, Andrew Cooper,
Ian Jackson, Jan Beulich, Wei Liu
Now we get this map layout by call XENMEM_memory_map then
save them into one global variable memory_map[]. It should
include lowmem range, rdm range and highmem range. Note
rdm range and highmem range may not exist in some cases.
And here we need to check if any reserved memory conflicts with
[RESERVED_MEMORY_DYNAMIC_START, RESERVED_MEMORY_DYNAMIC_END).
This range is used to allocate memory in hvmloder level, and
we would lead hvmloader failed in case of conflict since its
another rare possibility in real world.
CC: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
CC: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
CC: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
CC: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>
CC: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
CC: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
CC: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
---
v10:
* Nothing is changed.
v9:
* Correct [RESERVED_MEMORY_DYNAMIC_START, RESERVED_MEMORY_DYNAMIC_END]
-> [RESERVED_MEMORY_DYNAMIC_START, RESERVED_MEMORY_DYNAMIC_END) in
the patch head description;
Merge two if{} as one if{};
v8:
* Actually we should check this range started from
RESERVED_MEMORY_DYNAMIC_START, not RESERVED_MEMORY_DYNAMIC_START - 1.
So correct this and sync the patch head description.
v5 ~ v7:
* Nothing is changed.
v4:
* Move some codes related to e820 to that specific file, e820.c.
* Consolidate "printf()+BUG()" and "BUG_ON()"
* Avoid another fixed width type for the parameter of get_mem_mapping_layout()
tools/firmware/hvmloader/e820.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
tools/firmware/hvmloader/e820.h | 7 +++++++
tools/firmware/hvmloader/hvmloader.c | 2 ++
tools/firmware/hvmloader/util.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
tools/firmware/hvmloader/util.h | 12 ++++++++++++
5 files changed, 79 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/e820.c b/tools/firmware/hvmloader/e820.c
index 2e05e93..7a414ab 100644
--- a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/e820.c
+++ b/tools/firmware/hvmloader/e820.c
@@ -23,6 +23,38 @@
#include "config.h"
#include "util.h"
+struct e820map memory_map;
+
+void memory_map_setup(void)
+{
+ unsigned int nr_entries = E820MAX, i;
+ int rc;
+ uint64_t alloc_addr = RESERVED_MEMORY_DYNAMIC_START;
+ uint64_t alloc_size = RESERVED_MEMORY_DYNAMIC_END - alloc_addr;
+
+ rc = get_mem_mapping_layout(memory_map.map, &nr_entries);
+
+ if ( rc || !nr_entries )
+ {
+ printf("Get guest memory maps[%d] failed. (%d)\n", nr_entries, rc);
+ BUG();
+ }
+
+ memory_map.nr_map = nr_entries;
+
+ for ( i = 0; i < nr_entries; i++ )
+ {
+ if ( memory_map.map[i].type == E820_RESERVED &&
+ check_overlap(alloc_addr, alloc_size,
+ memory_map.map[i].addr, memory_map.map[i].size) )
+ {
+ printf("Fail to setup memory map due to conflict");
+ printf(" on dynamic reserved memory range.\n");
+ BUG();
+ }
+ }
+}
+
void dump_e820_table(struct e820entry *e820, unsigned int nr)
{
uint64_t last_end = 0, start, end;
diff --git a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/e820.h b/tools/firmware/hvmloader/e820.h
index b2ead7f..8b5a9e0 100644
--- a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/e820.h
+++ b/tools/firmware/hvmloader/e820.h
@@ -15,6 +15,13 @@ struct e820entry {
uint32_t type;
} __attribute__((packed));
+#define E820MAX 128
+
+struct e820map {
+ unsigned int nr_map;
+ struct e820entry map[E820MAX];
+};
+
#endif /* __HVMLOADER_E820_H__ */
/*
diff --git a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/hvmloader.c b/tools/firmware/hvmloader/hvmloader.c
index 25b7f08..84c588c 100644
--- a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/hvmloader.c
+++ b/tools/firmware/hvmloader/hvmloader.c
@@ -262,6 +262,8 @@ int main(void)
init_hypercalls();
+ memory_map_setup();
+
xenbus_setup();
bios = detect_bios();
diff --git a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/util.c b/tools/firmware/hvmloader/util.c
index 80d822f..122e3fa 100644
--- a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/util.c
+++ b/tools/firmware/hvmloader/util.c
@@ -27,6 +27,17 @@
#include <xen/memory.h>
#include <xen/sched.h>
+/*
+ * Check whether there exists overlap in the specified memory range.
+ * Returns true if exists, else returns false.
+ */
+bool check_overlap(uint64_t start, uint64_t size,
+ uint64_t reserved_start, uint64_t reserved_size)
+{
+ return (start + size > reserved_start) &&
+ (start < reserved_start + reserved_size);
+}
+
void wrmsr(uint32_t idx, uint64_t v)
{
asm volatile (
@@ -368,6 +379,21 @@ uuid_to_string(char *dest, uint8_t *uuid)
*p = '\0';
}
+int get_mem_mapping_layout(struct e820entry entries[], uint32_t *max_entries)
+{
+ int rc;
+ struct xen_memory_map memmap = {
+ .nr_entries = *max_entries
+ };
+
+ set_xen_guest_handle(memmap.buffer, entries);
+
+ rc = hypercall_memory_op(XENMEM_memory_map, &memmap);
+ *max_entries = memmap.nr_entries;
+
+ return rc;
+}
+
void mem_hole_populate_ram(xen_pfn_t mfn, uint32_t nr_mfns)
{
static int over_allocated;
diff --git a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/util.h b/tools/firmware/hvmloader/util.h
index f99c0f19..1100a3b 100644
--- a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/util.h
+++ b/tools/firmware/hvmloader/util.h
@@ -4,8 +4,10 @@
#include <stdarg.h>
#include <stdint.h>
#include <stddef.h>
+#include <stdbool.h>
#include <xen/xen.h>
#include <xen/hvm/hvm_info_table.h>
+#include "e820.h"
#define __STR(...) #__VA_ARGS__
#define STR(...) __STR(__VA_ARGS__)
@@ -222,6 +224,9 @@ int hvm_param_set(uint32_t index, uint64_t value);
/* Setup PCI bus */
void pci_setup(void);
+/* Setup memory map */
+void memory_map_setup(void);
+
/* Prepare the 32bit BIOS */
uint32_t rombios_highbios_setup(void);
@@ -249,6 +254,13 @@ void perform_tests(void);
extern char _start[], _end[];
+int get_mem_mapping_layout(struct e820entry entries[],
+ unsigned int *max_entries);
+
+extern struct e820map memory_map;
+bool check_overlap(uint64_t start, uint64_t size,
+ uint64_t reserved_start, uint64_t reserved_size);
+
#endif /* __HVMLOADER_UTIL_H__ */
/*
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* [v10][PATCH 06/16] hvmloader/pci: Try to avoid placing BARs in RMRRs
2015-07-20 6:16 [v10][PATCH 00/16] Fix RMRR Tiejun Chen
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2015-07-20 6:16 ` [v10][PATCH 05/16] hvmloader: get guest memory map into memory_map[] Tiejun Chen
@ 2015-07-20 6:16 ` Tiejun Chen
2015-07-20 11:00 ` George Dunlap
2015-07-20 11:30 ` Jan Beulich
2015-07-20 6:16 ` [v10][PATCH 07/16] hvmloader/e820: construct guest e820 table Tiejun Chen
` (10 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 2 replies; 74+ messages in thread
From: Tiejun Chen @ 2015-07-20 6:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xen-devel
Try to avoid placing PCI BARs over RMRRs:
- If mmio_hole_size is not specified, and the existing MMIO range has
RMRRs in it, and there is space to expand the hole in lowmem without
moving more memory, then make the MMIO hole as large as possible.
- When placing RMRRs, find the next RMRR higher than the current base
in the lowmem mmio hole. If it overlaps, skip ahead of it and find
the next one.
This certainly won't work in all cases, but it should work in a
significant number of cases. Additionally, users should be able to
work around problems by setting mmio_hole_size larger in the guest
config.
Signed-off-by: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
---
v10:
* This is from George' draft patch which implements an acceptable solution in
current cycle. Here I just implemented check_overlap_all() and some cleanups.
v9:
* A little improvement to code implementation but again, its still argued about
this solution.
v8:
* Based on current discussion its hard to reshape the original mmio
allocation mechanism but we haven't a good and simple way to in short term.
So instead, we don't bring more complicated to intervene that process but
still check any conflicts to disable all associated devices.
v6 ~ v7:
* Nothing is changed.
v5:
* Rename that field, is_64bar, inside struct bars with flag, and
then extend to also indicate if this bar is already allocated.
v4:
* We have to re-design this as follows:
#1. Goal
MMIO region should exclude all reserved device memory
#2. Requirements
#2.1 Still need to make sure MMIO region is fit all pci devices as before
#2.2 Accommodate the not aligned reserved memory regions
If I'm missing something let me know.
#3. How to
#3.1 Address #2.1
We need to either of populating more RAM, or of expanding more highmem. But
we should know just 64bit-bar can work with highmem, and as you mentioned we
also should avoid expanding highmem as possible. So my implementation is to
allocate 32bit-bar and 64bit-bar orderly.
1>. The first allocation round just to 32bit-bar
If we can finish allocating all 32bit-bar, we just go to allocate 64bit-bar
with all remaining resources including low pci memory.
If not, we need to calculate how much RAM should be populated to allocate the
remaining 32bit-bars, then populate sufficient RAM as exp_mem_resource to go
to the second allocation round 2>.
2>. The second allocation round to the remaining 32bit-bar
We should can finish allocating all 32bit-bar in theory, then go to the third
allocation round 3>.
3>. The third allocation round to 64bit-bar
We'll try to first allocate from the remaining low memory resource. If that
isn't enough, we try to expand highmem to allocate for 64bit-bar. This process
should be same as the original.
#3.2 Address #2.2
I'm trying to accommodate the not aligned reserved memory regions:
We should skip all reserved device memory, but we also need to check if other
smaller bars can be allocated if a mmio hole exists between resource->base and
reserved device memory. If a hole exists between base and reserved device
memory, lets go out simply to try allocate for next bar since all bars are in
descending order of size. If not, we need to move resource->base to reserved_end
just to reallocate this bar.
tools/firmware/hvmloader/pci.c | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 62 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/pci.c b/tools/firmware/hvmloader/pci.c
index 5ff87a7..f229a91 100644
--- a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/pci.c
+++ b/tools/firmware/hvmloader/pci.c
@@ -38,6 +38,43 @@ uint64_t pci_hi_mem_start = 0, pci_hi_mem_end = 0;
enum virtual_vga virtual_vga = VGA_none;
unsigned long igd_opregion_pgbase = 0;
+/* Check if any conflicts with all reserved device memory. */
+static bool check_overlap_all(uint64_t start, uint64_t size)
+{
+ unsigned int i;
+
+ for ( i = 0; i < memory_map.nr_map; i++ )
+ {
+ if ( memory_map.map[i].type == E820_RESERVED &&
+ check_overlap(start, size,
+ memory_map.map[i].addr,
+ memory_map.map[i].size) )
+ return true;
+ }
+
+ return false;
+}
+
+/* Find the lowest RMRR higher than base. */
+static int find_next_rmrr(uint32_t base)
+{
+ unsigned int i;
+ int next_rmrr = -1;
+ uint64_t min_base = (1ull << 32);
+
+ for ( i = 0; i < memory_map.nr_map ; i++ )
+ {
+ if ( memory_map.map[i].type == E820_RESERVED &&
+ memory_map.map[i].addr > base &&
+ memory_map.map[i].addr < min_base )
+ {
+ next_rmrr = i;
+ min_base = memory_map.map[i].addr;
+ }
+ }
+ return next_rmrr;
+}
+
void pci_setup(void)
{
uint8_t is_64bar, using_64bar, bar64_relocate = 0;
@@ -46,6 +83,7 @@ void pci_setup(void)
uint32_t vga_devfn = 256;
uint16_t class, vendor_id, device_id;
unsigned int bar, pin, link, isa_irq;
+ int next_rmrr;
/* Resources assignable to PCI devices via BARs. */
struct resource {
@@ -299,6 +337,15 @@ void pci_setup(void)
|| (((pci_mem_start << 1) >> PAGE_SHIFT)
>= hvm_info->low_mem_pgend)) )
pci_mem_start <<= 1;
+
+ /*
+ * Try to accomodate RMRRs in our MMIO region on a best-effort basis.
+ * If we have RMRRs in the range, then make pci_mem_start just after
+ * hvm_info->low_mem_pgend.
+ */
+ if ( pci_mem_start > (hvm_info->low_mem_pgend << PAGE_SHIFT) &&
+ check_overlap_all(pci_mem_start, pci_mem_end-pci_mem_start) )
+ pci_mem_start = ((hvm_info->low_mem_pgend + 1) << PAGE_SHIFT);
}
if ( mmio_total > (pci_mem_end - pci_mem_start) )
@@ -352,6 +399,8 @@ void pci_setup(void)
io_resource.base = 0xc000;
io_resource.max = 0x10000;
+ next_rmrr = find_next_rmrr(pci_mem_start);
+
/* Assign iomem and ioport resources in descending order of size. */
for ( i = 0; i < nr_bars; i++ )
{
@@ -407,6 +456,19 @@ void pci_setup(void)
}
base = (resource->base + bar_sz - 1) & ~(uint64_t)(bar_sz - 1);
+
+ /* If we're using mem_resource, check for RMRR conflicts. */
+ while ( resource == &mem_resource &&
+ next_rmrr > 0 &&
+ check_overlap(base, bar_sz,
+ memory_map.map[next_rmrr].addr,
+ memory_map.map[next_rmrr].size) )
+ {
+ base = memory_map.map[next_rmrr].addr + memory_map.map[next_rmrr].size;
+ base = (base + bar_sz - 1) & ~(uint64_t)(bar_sz - 1);
+ next_rmrr = find_next_rmrr(base);
+ }
+
bar_data |= (uint32_t)base;
bar_data_upper = (uint32_t)(base >> 32);
base += bar_sz;
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* [v10][PATCH 07/16] hvmloader/e820: construct guest e820 table
2015-07-20 6:16 [v10][PATCH 00/16] Fix RMRR Tiejun Chen
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2015-07-20 6:16 ` [v10][PATCH 06/16] hvmloader/pci: Try to avoid placing BARs in RMRRs Tiejun Chen
@ 2015-07-20 6:16 ` Tiejun Chen
2015-07-20 11:56 ` Jan Beulich
2015-07-20 13:00 ` George Dunlap
2015-07-20 6:16 ` [v10][PATCH 08/16] tools/libxc: Expose new hypercall xc_reserved_device_memory_map Tiejun Chen
` (9 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 2 replies; 74+ messages in thread
From: Tiejun Chen @ 2015-07-20 6:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xen-devel
Cc: Keir Fraser, Ian Campbell, Stefano Stabellini, Andrew Cooper,
Ian Jackson, Jan Beulich, Wei Liu
Now use the hypervisor-supplied memory map to build our final e820 table:
* Add regions for BIOS ranges and other special mappings not in the
hypervisor map
* Add in the hypervisor supplied regions
* Adjust the lowmem and highmem regions if we've had to relocate
memory (adding a highmem region if necessary)
* Sort all the ranges so that they appear in memory order.
CC: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
CC: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
CC: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
CC: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>
CC: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
CC: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
CC: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
---
v10:
* Instead of correcting e820, I'd like to correct memory_map.map[]
and then copy them into e820 directly. I think this can make sure
hvm_info, memory_map.map[] and e820 are on the same page.
v9:
* Refine that chunk of codes to check/modify highmem
v8:
* define low_mem_end as uint32_t
* Correct those two wrong loops, memory_map.nr_map -> nr
when we're trying to revise low/high memory e820 entries.
* Improve code comments and the patch head description
* Add one check if highmem is just populated by hvmloader itself
v5 ~ v7:
* Nothing is changed.
v4:
* Rename local variable, low_mem_pgend, to low_mem_end.
* Improve some code comments
* Adjust highmem after lowmem is changed.
tools/firmware/hvmloader/e820.c | 108 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
1 file changed, 95 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/e820.c b/tools/firmware/hvmloader/e820.c
index 7a414ab..ca794ad 100644
--- a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/e820.c
+++ b/tools/firmware/hvmloader/e820.c
@@ -105,7 +105,11 @@ int build_e820_table(struct e820entry *e820,
unsigned int lowmem_reserved_base,
unsigned int bios_image_base)
{
- unsigned int nr = 0;
+ unsigned int nr = 0, i, j;
+ uint32_t low_mem_end = hvm_info->low_mem_pgend << PAGE_SHIFT;
+ uint32_t add_high_mem = 0;
+ uint64_t high_mem_end = (uint64_t)hvm_info->high_mem_pgend << PAGE_SHIFT;
+ uint64_t map_start, map_size, map_end;
if ( !lowmem_reserved_base )
lowmem_reserved_base = 0xA0000;
@@ -149,13 +153,6 @@ int build_e820_table(struct e820entry *e820,
e820[nr].type = E820_RESERVED;
nr++;
- /* Low RAM goes here. Reserve space for special pages. */
- BUG_ON((hvm_info->low_mem_pgend << PAGE_SHIFT) < (2u << 20));
- e820[nr].addr = 0x100000;
- e820[nr].size = (hvm_info->low_mem_pgend << PAGE_SHIFT) - e820[nr].addr;
- e820[nr].type = E820_RAM;
- nr++;
-
/*
* Explicitly reserve space for special pages.
* This space starts at RESERVED_MEMBASE an extends to cover various
@@ -191,16 +188,101 @@ int build_e820_table(struct e820entry *e820,
nr++;
}
+ /* Low RAM goes here. Reserve space for special pages. */
+ BUG_ON(low_mem_end < (2u << 20));
- if ( hvm_info->high_mem_pgend )
+ /*
+ * Construct E820 table according to recorded memory map.
+ *
+ * The memory map created by toolstack may include,
+ *
+ * #1. Low memory region
+ *
+ * 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.
+ *
+ * #2. Reserved regions if they exist
+ *
+ * #3. High memory region if it exists
+ *
+ * Note we just have one low memory entry and one high mmeory entry if
+ * exists.
+ *
+ * But we may have relocated RAM to allocate sufficient MMIO previously
+ * so low_mem_pgend would be changed over there. And here memory_map[]
+ * records the original low/high memory, so if low_mem_end is less than
+ * the original we need to revise low/high memory range firstly.
+ */
+ for ( i = 0; i < memory_map.nr_map; i++ )
{
- e820[nr].addr = ((uint64_t)1 << 32);
- e820[nr].size =
- ((uint64_t)hvm_info->high_mem_pgend << PAGE_SHIFT) - e820[nr].addr;
- e820[nr].type = E820_RAM;
+ map_start = memory_map.map[i].addr;
+ map_size = memory_map.map[i].size;
+ map_end = map_start + map_size;
+
+ /* If we need to adjust lowmem. */
+ if ( memory_map.map[i].type == E820_RAM &&
+ low_mem_end > map_start && low_mem_end < map_end )
+ {
+ add_high_mem = map_end - low_mem_end;
+ memory_map.map[i].size = low_mem_end - map_start;
+ break;
+ }
+ }
+
+ /* If we need to adjust highmem. */
+ if ( add_high_mem )
+ {
+ /* Modify the existing highmem region if it exists. */
+ for ( i = 0; i < memory_map.nr_map; i++ )
+ {
+ map_start = memory_map.map[i].addr;
+ map_size = memory_map.map[i].size;
+ map_end = map_start + map_size;
+
+ if ( memory_map.map[i].type == E820_RAM &&
+ map_start == ((uint64_t)1 << 32))
+ {
+ memory_map.map[i].size += add_high_mem;
+ break;
+ }
+ }
+
+ /* If there was no highmem region, just create one. */
+ if ( i == memory_map.nr_map )
+ {
+ memory_map.map[i].addr = ((uint64_t)1 << 32);
+ memory_map.map[i].size = add_high_mem;
+ memory_map.map[i].type = E820_RAM;
+ }
+
+ /* A sanity check if high memory is broken. */
+ BUG_ON( high_mem_end !=
+ memory_map.map[i].addr + memory_map.map[i].size);
+ }
+
+ /* Now fulfill e820. */
+ for ( i = 0; i < memory_map.nr_map; i++ )
+ {
+ e820[nr] = memory_map.map[i];
nr++;
}
+ /* Finally we need to sort all e820 entries. */
+ for ( j = 0; j < nr-1; j++ )
+ {
+ for ( i = j+1; i < nr; i++ )
+ {
+ if ( e820[j].addr > e820[i].addr )
+ {
+ struct e820entry tmp = e820[j];
+
+ e820[j] = e820[i];
+ e820[i] = tmp;
+ }
+ }
+ }
+
return nr;
}
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* [v10][PATCH 08/16] tools/libxc: Expose new hypercall xc_reserved_device_memory_map
2015-07-20 6:16 [v10][PATCH 00/16] Fix RMRR Tiejun Chen
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2015-07-20 6:16 ` [v10][PATCH 07/16] hvmloader/e820: construct guest e820 table Tiejun Chen
@ 2015-07-20 6:16 ` Tiejun Chen
2015-07-20 6:16 ` [v10][PATCH 09/16] tools: extend xc_assign_device() to support rdm reservation policy Tiejun Chen
` (8 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread
From: Tiejun Chen @ 2015-07-20 6:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xen-devel; +Cc: Wei Liu, Ian Jackson, Ian Campbell, Stefano Stabellini
We will introduce the hypercall xc_reserved_device_memory_map
approach to libxc. This helps us get rdm entry info according to
different parameters. If flag == PCI_DEV_RDM_ALL, all entries
should be exposed. Or we just expose that rdm entry specific to
a SBDF.
CC: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>
CC: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
CC: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
CC: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
Acked-by: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
---
v4 ~ v10:
* Nothing is changed.
tools/libxc/include/xenctrl.h | 8 ++++++++
tools/libxc/xc_domain.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 44 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/libxc/include/xenctrl.h b/tools/libxc/include/xenctrl.h
index d1d2ab3..9160623 100644
--- a/tools/libxc/include/xenctrl.h
+++ b/tools/libxc/include/xenctrl.h
@@ -1326,6 +1326,14 @@ int xc_domain_set_memory_map(xc_interface *xch,
int xc_get_machine_memory_map(xc_interface *xch,
struct e820entry entries[],
uint32_t max_entries);
+
+int xc_reserved_device_memory_map(xc_interface *xch,
+ uint32_t flag,
+ uint16_t seg,
+ uint8_t bus,
+ uint8_t devfn,
+ struct xen_reserved_device_memory entries[],
+ uint32_t *max_entries);
#endif
int xc_domain_set_time_offset(xc_interface *xch,
uint32_t domid,
diff --git a/tools/libxc/xc_domain.c b/tools/libxc/xc_domain.c
index ce51e69..0951291 100644
--- a/tools/libxc/xc_domain.c
+++ b/tools/libxc/xc_domain.c
@@ -684,6 +684,42 @@ int xc_domain_set_memory_map(xc_interface *xch,
return rc;
}
+
+int xc_reserved_device_memory_map(xc_interface *xch,
+ uint32_t flag,
+ uint16_t seg,
+ uint8_t bus,
+ uint8_t devfn,
+ struct xen_reserved_device_memory entries[],
+ uint32_t *max_entries)
+{
+ int rc;
+ struct xen_reserved_device_memory_map xrdmmap = {
+ .flag = flag,
+ .seg = seg,
+ .bus = bus,
+ .devfn = devfn,
+ .nr_entries = *max_entries
+ };
+ DECLARE_HYPERCALL_BOUNCE(entries,
+ sizeof(struct xen_reserved_device_memory) *
+ *max_entries, XC_HYPERCALL_BUFFER_BOUNCE_OUT);
+
+ if ( xc_hypercall_bounce_pre(xch, entries) )
+ return -1;
+
+ set_xen_guest_handle(xrdmmap.buffer, entries);
+
+ rc = do_memory_op(xch, XENMEM_reserved_device_memory_map,
+ &xrdmmap, sizeof(xrdmmap));
+
+ xc_hypercall_bounce_post(xch, entries);
+
+ *max_entries = xrdmmap.nr_entries;
+
+ return rc;
+}
+
int xc_get_machine_memory_map(xc_interface *xch,
struct e820entry entries[],
uint32_t max_entries)
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* [v10][PATCH 09/16] tools: extend xc_assign_device() to support rdm reservation policy
2015-07-20 6:16 [v10][PATCH 00/16] Fix RMRR Tiejun Chen
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2015-07-20 6:16 ` [v10][PATCH 08/16] tools/libxc: Expose new hypercall xc_reserved_device_memory_map Tiejun Chen
@ 2015-07-20 6:16 ` Tiejun Chen
2015-07-20 6:16 ` [v10][PATCH 10/16] tools: introduce some new parameters to set rdm policy Tiejun Chen
` (7 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread
From: Tiejun Chen @ 2015-07-20 6:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xen-devel
Cc: Wei Liu, David Scott, Ian Jackson, Ian Campbell, Stefano Stabellini
This patch passes rdm reservation policy to xc_assign_device() so the policy
is checked when assigning devices to a VM.
Note this also bring some fallout to python usage of xc_assign_device().
CC: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>
CC: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
CC: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
CC: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
CC: David Scott <dave.scott@eu.citrix.com>
Acked-by: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
---
v6 ~ v10:
* Nothing is changed.
v5:
* Fix the flag field as "0" to DT device
v4:
* In the patch head description, I add to explain why we need to sync
the xc.c file
tools/libxc/include/xenctrl.h | 3 ++-
tools/libxc/xc_domain.c | 9 ++++++++-
tools/libxl/libxl_pci.c | 3 ++-
tools/ocaml/libs/xc/xenctrl_stubs.c | 16 ++++++++++++----
tools/python/xen/lowlevel/xc/xc.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++----------
5 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/libxc/include/xenctrl.h b/tools/libxc/include/xenctrl.h
index 9160623..89cbc5a 100644
--- a/tools/libxc/include/xenctrl.h
+++ b/tools/libxc/include/xenctrl.h
@@ -2079,7 +2079,8 @@ int xc_hvm_destroy_ioreq_server(xc_interface *xch,
/* HVM guest pass-through */
int xc_assign_device(xc_interface *xch,
uint32_t domid,
- uint32_t machine_sbdf);
+ uint32_t machine_sbdf,
+ uint32_t flag);
int xc_get_device_group(xc_interface *xch,
uint32_t domid,
diff --git a/tools/libxc/xc_domain.c b/tools/libxc/xc_domain.c
index 0951291..ef41228 100644
--- a/tools/libxc/xc_domain.c
+++ b/tools/libxc/xc_domain.c
@@ -1697,7 +1697,8 @@ int xc_domain_setdebugging(xc_interface *xch,
int xc_assign_device(
xc_interface *xch,
uint32_t domid,
- uint32_t machine_sbdf)
+ uint32_t machine_sbdf,
+ uint32_t flag)
{
DECLARE_DOMCTL;
@@ -1705,6 +1706,7 @@ int xc_assign_device(
domctl.domain = domid;
domctl.u.assign_device.dev = XEN_DOMCTL_DEV_PCI;
domctl.u.assign_device.u.pci.machine_sbdf = machine_sbdf;
+ domctl.u.assign_device.flag = flag;
return do_domctl(xch, &domctl);
}
@@ -1792,6 +1794,11 @@ int xc_assign_dt_device(
domctl.u.assign_device.dev = XEN_DOMCTL_DEV_DT;
domctl.u.assign_device.u.dt.size = size;
+ /*
+ * DT doesn't own any RDM so actually DT has nothing to do
+ * for any flag and here just fix that as 0.
+ */
+ domctl.u.assign_device.flag = 0;
set_xen_guest_handle(domctl.u.assign_device.u.dt.path, path);
rc = do_domctl(xch, &domctl);
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_pci.c b/tools/libxl/libxl_pci.c
index e0743f8..632c15e 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_pci.c
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_pci.c
@@ -894,6 +894,7 @@ static int do_pci_add(libxl__gc *gc, uint32_t domid, libxl_device_pci *pcidev, i
FILE *f;
unsigned long long start, end, flags, size;
int irq, i, rc, hvm = 0;
+ uint32_t flag = XEN_DOMCTL_DEV_RDM_RELAXED;
if (type == LIBXL_DOMAIN_TYPE_INVALID)
return ERROR_FAIL;
@@ -987,7 +988,7 @@ static int do_pci_add(libxl__gc *gc, uint32_t domid, libxl_device_pci *pcidev, i
out:
if (!libxl_is_stubdom(ctx, domid, NULL)) {
- rc = xc_assign_device(ctx->xch, domid, pcidev_encode_bdf(pcidev));
+ rc = xc_assign_device(ctx->xch, domid, pcidev_encode_bdf(pcidev), flag);
if (rc < 0 && (hvm || errno != ENOSYS)) {
LIBXL__LOG_ERRNO(ctx, LIBXL__LOG_ERROR, "xc_assign_device failed");
return ERROR_FAIL;
diff --git a/tools/ocaml/libs/xc/xenctrl_stubs.c b/tools/ocaml/libs/xc/xenctrl_stubs.c
index 64f1137..b7de615 100644
--- a/tools/ocaml/libs/xc/xenctrl_stubs.c
+++ b/tools/ocaml/libs/xc/xenctrl_stubs.c
@@ -1172,12 +1172,17 @@ CAMLprim value stub_xc_domain_test_assign_device(value xch, value domid, value d
CAMLreturn(Val_bool(ret == 0));
}
-CAMLprim value stub_xc_domain_assign_device(value xch, value domid, value desc)
+static int domain_assign_device_rdm_flag_table[] = {
+ XEN_DOMCTL_DEV_RDM_RELAXED,
+};
+
+CAMLprim value stub_xc_domain_assign_device(value xch, value domid, value desc,
+ value rflag)
{
- CAMLparam3(xch, domid, desc);
+ CAMLparam4(xch, domid, desc, rflag);
int ret;
int domain, bus, dev, func;
- uint32_t sbdf;
+ uint32_t sbdf, flag;
domain = Int_val(Field(desc, 0));
bus = Int_val(Field(desc, 1));
@@ -1185,7 +1190,10 @@ CAMLprim value stub_xc_domain_assign_device(value xch, value domid, value desc)
func = Int_val(Field(desc, 3));
sbdf = encode_sbdf(domain, bus, dev, func);
- ret = xc_assign_device(_H(xch), _D(domid), sbdf);
+ ret = Int_val(Field(rflag, 0));
+ flag = domain_assign_device_rdm_flag_table[ret];
+
+ ret = xc_assign_device(_H(xch), _D(domid), sbdf, flag);
if (ret < 0)
failwith_xc(_H(xch));
diff --git a/tools/python/xen/lowlevel/xc/xc.c b/tools/python/xen/lowlevel/xc/xc.c
index c77e15b..a4928c6 100644
--- a/tools/python/xen/lowlevel/xc/xc.c
+++ b/tools/python/xen/lowlevel/xc/xc.c
@@ -592,7 +592,8 @@ static int token_value(char *token)
return strtol(token, NULL, 16);
}
-static int next_bdf(char **str, int *seg, int *bus, int *dev, int *func)
+static int next_bdf(char **str, int *seg, int *bus, int *dev, int *func,
+ int *flag)
{
char *token;
@@ -607,8 +608,17 @@ static int next_bdf(char **str, int *seg, int *bus, int *dev, int *func)
*dev = token_value(token);
token = strchr(token, ',') + 1;
*func = token_value(token);
- token = strchr(token, ',');
- *str = token ? token + 1 : NULL;
+ token = strchr(token, ',') + 1;
+ if ( token ) {
+ *flag = token_value(token);
+ *str = token + 1;
+ }
+ else
+ {
+ /* O means we take "strict" as our default policy. */
+ *flag = 0;
+ *str = NULL;
+ }
return 1;
}
@@ -620,14 +630,14 @@ static PyObject *pyxc_test_assign_device(XcObject *self,
uint32_t dom;
char *pci_str;
int32_t sbdf = 0;
- int seg, bus, dev, func;
+ int seg, bus, dev, func, flag;
static char *kwd_list[] = { "domid", "pci", NULL };
if ( !PyArg_ParseTupleAndKeywords(args, kwds, "is", kwd_list,
&dom, &pci_str) )
return NULL;
- while ( next_bdf(&pci_str, &seg, &bus, &dev, &func) )
+ while ( next_bdf(&pci_str, &seg, &bus, &dev, &func, &flag) )
{
sbdf = seg << 16;
sbdf |= (bus & 0xff) << 8;
@@ -653,21 +663,21 @@ static PyObject *pyxc_assign_device(XcObject *self,
uint32_t dom;
char *pci_str;
int32_t sbdf = 0;
- int seg, bus, dev, func;
+ int seg, bus, dev, func, flag;
static char *kwd_list[] = { "domid", "pci", NULL };
if ( !PyArg_ParseTupleAndKeywords(args, kwds, "is", kwd_list,
&dom, &pci_str) )
return NULL;
- while ( next_bdf(&pci_str, &seg, &bus, &dev, &func) )
+ while ( next_bdf(&pci_str, &seg, &bus, &dev, &func, &flag) )
{
sbdf = seg << 16;
sbdf |= (bus & 0xff) << 8;
sbdf |= (dev & 0x1f) << 3;
sbdf |= (func & 0x7);
- if ( xc_assign_device(self->xc_handle, dom, sbdf) != 0 )
+ if ( xc_assign_device(self->xc_handle, dom, sbdf, flag) != 0 )
{
if (errno == ENOSYS)
sbdf = -1;
@@ -686,14 +696,14 @@ static PyObject *pyxc_deassign_device(XcObject *self,
uint32_t dom;
char *pci_str;
int32_t sbdf = 0;
- int seg, bus, dev, func;
+ int seg, bus, dev, func, flag;
static char *kwd_list[] = { "domid", "pci", NULL };
if ( !PyArg_ParseTupleAndKeywords(args, kwds, "is", kwd_list,
&dom, &pci_str) )
return NULL;
- while ( next_bdf(&pci_str, &seg, &bus, &dev, &func) )
+ while ( next_bdf(&pci_str, &seg, &bus, &dev, &func, &flag) )
{
sbdf = seg << 16;
sbdf |= (bus & 0xff) << 8;
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* [v10][PATCH 10/16] tools: introduce some new parameters to set rdm policy
2015-07-20 6:16 [v10][PATCH 00/16] Fix RMRR Tiejun Chen
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2015-07-20 6:16 ` [v10][PATCH 09/16] tools: extend xc_assign_device() to support rdm reservation policy Tiejun Chen
@ 2015-07-20 6:16 ` Tiejun Chen
2015-07-20 6:16 ` [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM Tiejun Chen
` (6 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread
From: Tiejun Chen @ 2015-07-20 6:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xen-devel; +Cc: Wei Liu, Ian Jackson, Ian Campbell, Stefano Stabellini
This patch introduces user configurable parameters to specify RDM
resource and according policies,
Global RDM parameter:
rdm = "strategy=host,policy=strict/relaxed"
Per-device RDM parameter:
pci = [ 'sbdf, rdm_policy=strict/relaxed' ]
Global RDM parameter, "strategy", allows user to specify reserved regions
explicitly, Currently, using 'host' to include all reserved regions reported
on this platform which is good to handle hotplug scenario. In the future
this parameter may be further extended to allow specifying random regions,
e.g. even those belonging to another platform as a preparation for live
migration with passthrough devices. By default this isn't set so we don't
check all rdms. Instead, we just check rdm specific to a given device if
you're assigning this kind of device. Note this option is not recommended
unless you can make sure any conflict does exist.
'strict/relaxed' policy decides how to handle conflict when reserving RDM
regions in pfn space. If conflict exists, 'strict' means an immediate error
so VM can't keep running, while 'relaxed' allows moving forward with a
warning message thrown out.
Default per-device RDM policy is same as default global RDM policy as being
'relaxed'. And the per-device policy would override the global policy like
others.
CC: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>
CC: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
CC: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
CC: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Acked-by: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Acked-by: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>
Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
---
v9 ~ v10:
* Nothing is changed.
v8:
* One minimal code style change
v7:
* Need to rename some parameters:
In the xl rdm config parsing, `reserve=' should be `policy='.
In the xl pci config parsing, `rdm_reserve=' should be `rdm_policy='.
The type `libxl_rdm_reserve_flag' should be `libxl_rdm_policy'.
The field name `reserve' in `libxl_rdm_reserve' should be `policy'.
v6:
* Some rename to make our policy reasonable
"type" -> "strategy"
"none" -> "ignore"
* Don't expose "ignore" in xl level and just keep that as a default.
And then sync docs and the patch head description
v5:
* Just make sure the per-device plicy always override the global policy,
and so cleanup some associated comments and the patch head description.
* A little change to follow one bit, XEN_DOMCTL_DEV_RDM_RELAXED.
* Improve all descriptions in doc.
* Make all rdm variables specific to .hvm
v4:
* No need to define init_val for libxl_rdm_reserve_type since its just zero
* Grab those changes to xl/libxlu to as a final patch
docs/man/xl.cfg.pod.5 | 81 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
docs/misc/vtd.txt | 24 +++++++++++++
tools/libxl/libxl_create.c | 7 ++++
tools/libxl/libxl_internal.h | 2 ++
tools/libxl/libxl_pci.c | 9 +++++
tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl | 18 ++++++++++
6 files changed, 141 insertions(+)
diff --git a/docs/man/xl.cfg.pod.5 b/docs/man/xl.cfg.pod.5
index a3e0e2e..6c55a8b 100644
--- a/docs/man/xl.cfg.pod.5
+++ b/docs/man/xl.cfg.pod.5
@@ -655,6 +655,79 @@ assigned slave device.
=back
+=item B<rdm="RDM_RESERVATION_STRING">
+
+(HVM/x86 only) Specifies information about Reserved Device Memory (RDM),
+which is necessary to enable robust device passthrough. One example of RDM
+is reported through ACPI Reserved Memory Region Reporting (RMRR) structure
+on x86 platform.
+
+B<RDM_RESERVE_STRING> has the form C<[KEY=VALUE,KEY=VALUE,...> where:
+
+=over 4
+
+=item B<KEY=VALUE>
+
+Possible B<KEY>s are:
+
+=over 4
+
+=item B<strategy="STRING">
+
+Currently there is only one valid type:
+
+"host" means all reserved device memory on this platform should be checked to
+reserve regions in this VM's guest address space. This global rdm parameter
+allows user to specify reserved regions explicitly, and using "host" includes
+all reserved regions reported on this platform, which is useful when doing
+hotplug.
+
+By default this isn't set so we don't check all rdms. Instead, we just check
+rdm specific to a given device if you're assigning this kind of device. Note
+this option is not recommended unless you can make sure any conflict does exist.
+
+For example, you're trying to set "memory = 2800" to allocate memory to one
+given VM but the platform owns two RDM regions like,
+
+Device A [sbdf_A]: RMRR region_A: base_addr ac6d3000 end_address ac6e6fff
+Device B [sbdf_B]: RMRR region_B: base_addr ad800000 end_address afffffff
+
+In this conflict case,
+
+#1. If B<strategy> is set to "host", for example,
+
+rdm = "strategy=host,policy=strict" or rdm = "strategy=host,policy=relaxed"
+
+It means all conflicts will be handled according to the policy
+introduced by B<policy> as described below.
+
+#2. If B<strategy> is not set at all, but
+
+pci = [ 'sbdf_A, rdm_policy=xxxxx' ]
+
+It means only one conflict of region_A will be handled according to the policy
+introduced by B<rdm_policy="STRING"> as described inside pci options.
+
+=item B<policy="STRING">
+
+Specifies how to deal with conflicts when reserving reserved device
+memory in guest address space.
+
+When that conflict is unsolved,
+
+"strict" means VM can't be created, or the associated device can't be
+attached in the case of hotplug.
+
+"relaxed" allows VM to be created but may cause VM to crash if
+pass-through device accesses RDM. For exampl,e Windows IGD GFX driver
+always accessed RDM regions so it leads to VM crash.
+
+Note this may be overridden by rdm_policy option in PCI device configuration.
+
+=back
+
+=back
+
=item B<pci=[ "PCI_SPEC_STRING", "PCI_SPEC_STRING", ... ]>
Specifies the host PCI devices to passthrough to this guest. Each B<PCI_SPEC_STRING>
@@ -717,6 +790,14 @@ dom0 without confirmation. Please use with care.
D0-D3hot power management states for the PCI device. False (0) by
default.
+=item B<rdm_policy="STRING">
+
+(HVM/x86 only) This is same as policy option inside the rdm option but
+just specific to a given device. Therefore the default is "relaxed" as
+same as policy option as well.
+
+Note this would override global B<rdm> option.
+
=back
=back
diff --git a/docs/misc/vtd.txt b/docs/misc/vtd.txt
index 9af0e99..88b2102 100644
--- a/docs/misc/vtd.txt
+++ b/docs/misc/vtd.txt
@@ -111,6 +111,30 @@ in the config file:
To override for a specific device:
pci = [ '01:00.0,msitranslate=0', '03:00.0' ]
+RDM, 'reserved device memory', for PCI Device Passthrough
+---------------------------------------------------------
+
+There are some devices the BIOS controls, for e.g. USB devices to perform
+PS2 emulation. The regions of memory used for these devices are marked
+reserved in the e820 map. When we turn on DMA translation, DMA to those
+regions will fail. Hence BIOS uses RMRR to specify these regions along with
+devices that need to access these regions. OS is expected to setup
+identity mappings for these regions for these devices to access these regions.
+
+While creating a VM we should reserve them in advance, and avoid any conflicts.
+So we introduce user configurable parameters to specify RDM resource and
+according policies,
+
+To enable this globally, add "rdm" in the config file:
+
+ rdm = "strategy=host, policy=relaxed" (default policy is "relaxed")
+
+Or just for a specific device:
+
+ pci = [ '01:00.0,rdm_policy=relaxed', '03:00.0,rdm_policy=strict' ]
+
+For all the options available to RDM, see xl.cfg(5).
+
Caveat on Conventional PCI Device Passthrough
---------------------------------------------
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_create.c b/tools/libxl/libxl_create.c
index f366a09..f75d4f1 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_create.c
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_create.c
@@ -105,6 +105,12 @@ static int sched_params_valid(libxl__gc *gc,
return 1;
}
+void libxl__rdm_setdefault(libxl__gc *gc, libxl_domain_build_info *b_info)
+{
+ if (b_info->u.hvm.rdm.policy == LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_POLICY_INVALID)
+ b_info->u.hvm.rdm.policy = LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_POLICY_RELAXED;
+}
+
int libxl__domain_build_info_setdefault(libxl__gc *gc,
libxl_domain_build_info *b_info)
{
@@ -384,6 +390,7 @@ int libxl__domain_build_info_setdefault(libxl__gc *gc,
libxl_defbool_setdefault(&b_info->u.hvm.gfx_passthru, false);
+ libxl__rdm_setdefault(gc, b_info);
break;
case LIBXL_DOMAIN_TYPE_PV:
libxl_defbool_setdefault(&b_info->u.pv.e820_host, false);
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_internal.h b/tools/libxl/libxl_internal.h
index d52589e..d397143 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_internal.h
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_internal.h
@@ -1154,6 +1154,8 @@ _hidden int libxl__device_vtpm_setdefault(libxl__gc *gc, libxl_device_vtpm *vtpm
_hidden int libxl__device_vfb_setdefault(libxl__gc *gc, libxl_device_vfb *vfb);
_hidden int libxl__device_vkb_setdefault(libxl__gc *gc, libxl_device_vkb *vkb);
_hidden int libxl__device_pci_setdefault(libxl__gc *gc, libxl_device_pci *pci);
+_hidden void libxl__rdm_setdefault(libxl__gc *gc,
+ libxl_domain_build_info *b_info);
_hidden const char *libxl__device_nic_devname(libxl__gc *gc,
uint32_t domid,
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_pci.c b/tools/libxl/libxl_pci.c
index 632c15e..1ebdce7 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_pci.c
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_pci.c
@@ -988,6 +988,12 @@ static int do_pci_add(libxl__gc *gc, uint32_t domid, libxl_device_pci *pcidev, i
out:
if (!libxl_is_stubdom(ctx, domid, NULL)) {
+ if (pcidev->rdm_policy == LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_POLICY_STRICT) {
+ flag &= ~XEN_DOMCTL_DEV_RDM_RELAXED;
+ } else if (pcidev->rdm_policy != LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_POLICY_RELAXED) {
+ LIBXL__LOG_ERRNO(ctx, LIBXL__LOG_ERROR, "unknown rdm check flag.");
+ return ERROR_FAIL;
+ }
rc = xc_assign_device(ctx->xch, domid, pcidev_encode_bdf(pcidev), flag);
if (rc < 0 && (hvm || errno != ENOSYS)) {
LIBXL__LOG_ERRNO(ctx, LIBXL__LOG_ERROR, "xc_assign_device failed");
@@ -1040,6 +1046,9 @@ static int libxl__device_pci_reset(libxl__gc *gc, unsigned int domain, unsigned
int libxl__device_pci_setdefault(libxl__gc *gc, libxl_device_pci *pci)
{
+ /* We'd like to force reserve rdm specific to a device by default.*/
+ if (pci->rdm_policy == LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_POLICY_INVALID)
+ pci->rdm_policy = LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_POLICY_STRICT;
return 0;
}
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl b/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl
index e1632fa..47dd83a 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl
@@ -76,6 +76,17 @@ libxl_domain_type = Enumeration("domain_type", [
(2, "PV"),
], init_val = "LIBXL_DOMAIN_TYPE_INVALID")
+libxl_rdm_reserve_strategy = Enumeration("rdm_reserve_strategy", [
+ (0, "ignore"),
+ (1, "host"),
+ ])
+
+libxl_rdm_reserve_policy = Enumeration("rdm_reserve_policy", [
+ (-1, "invalid"),
+ (0, "strict"),
+ (1, "relaxed"),
+ ], init_val = "LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_POLICY_INVALID")
+
libxl_channel_connection = Enumeration("channel_connection", [
(0, "UNKNOWN"),
(1, "PTY"),
@@ -369,6 +380,11 @@ libxl_vnode_info = Struct("vnode_info", [
("vcpus", libxl_bitmap), # vcpus in this node
])
+libxl_rdm_reserve = Struct("rdm_reserve", [
+ ("strategy", libxl_rdm_reserve_strategy),
+ ("policy", libxl_rdm_reserve_policy),
+ ])
+
libxl_domain_build_info = Struct("domain_build_info",[
("max_vcpus", integer),
("avail_vcpus", libxl_bitmap),
@@ -467,6 +483,7 @@ libxl_domain_build_info = Struct("domain_build_info",[
# See libxl_ms_vm_genid_generate()
("ms_vm_genid", libxl_ms_vm_genid),
("serial_list", libxl_string_list),
+ ("rdm", libxl_rdm_reserve),
])),
("pv", Struct(None, [("kernel", string),
("slack_memkb", MemKB),
@@ -542,6 +559,7 @@ libxl_device_pci = Struct("device_pci", [
("power_mgmt", bool),
("permissive", bool),
("seize", bool),
+ ("rdm_policy", libxl_rdm_reserve_policy),
])
libxl_device_dtdev = Struct("device_dtdev", [
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM
2015-07-20 6:16 [v10][PATCH 00/16] Fix RMRR Tiejun Chen
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2015-07-20 6:16 ` [v10][PATCH 10/16] tools: introduce some new parameters to set rdm policy Tiejun Chen
@ 2015-07-20 6:16 ` Tiejun Chen
2015-07-20 13:32 ` Ian Jackson
2015-07-20 6:16 ` [v10][PATCH 12/16] tools: introduce a new parameter to set a predefined rdm boundary Tiejun Chen
` (5 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread
From: Tiejun Chen @ 2015-07-20 6:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xen-devel; +Cc: Wei Liu, Ian Jackson, Ian Campbell, Stefano Stabellini
While building a VM, HVM domain builder provides struct hvm_info_table{}
to help hvmloader. Currently it includes two fields to construct guest
e820 table by hvmloader, low_mem_pgend and high_mem_pgend. So we should
check them to fix any conflict with RDM.
RMRR can reside in address space beyond 4G theoretically, but we never
see this in real world. So in order to avoid breaking highmem layout
we don't solve highmem conflict. Note this means highmem rmrr could still
be supported if no conflict.
But in the case of lowmem, RMRR probably scatter the whole RAM space.
Especially multiple RMRR entries would worsen this to lead a complicated
memory layout. And then its hard to extend hvm_info_table{} to work
hvmloader out. So here we're trying to figure out a simple solution to
avoid breaking existing layout. So when a conflict occurs,
#1. Above a predefined boundary (2G)
- move lowmem_end below reserved region to solve conflict;
#2. Below a predefined boundary (2G)
- Check strict/relaxed policy.
"strict" policy leads to fail libxl. Note when both policies
are specified on a given region, 'strict' is always preferred.
"relaxed" policy issue a warning message and also mask this entry INVALID
to indicate we shouldn't expose this entry to hvmloader.
Note later we need to provide a parameter to set that predefined boundary
dynamically.
CC: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>
CC: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
CC: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
CC: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Acked-by: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
---
v9 ~ v10:
* Nothing is changed.
v8:
* Introduce pfn_to_paddr(x) -> ((uint64_t)x << XC_PAGE_SHIFT)
and set_rdm_entries() to factor out current codes.
v7:
* Just sync with the fallout of renaming parameters from patch #10.
v6:
* fix some code stypes
* Refine libxl__xc_device_get_rdm()
v5:
* A little change to make sure the per-device policy always override the global
policy and correct its associated code comments.
* Fix one typo in the patch head description
* Rename xc_device_get_rdm() with libxl__xc_device_get_rdm(), and then replace
malloc() with libxl__malloc(), and finally cleanup this fallout.
* libxl__xc_device_get_rdm() should return proper libxl error code, ERROR_FAIL.
Then instead, the allocated RDM entries would be returned with an out parameter.
v4:
* Consistent to use term "RDM".
* Unconditionally set *nr_entries to 0
* Grab to all sutffs to provide a parameter to set our predefined boundary
dynamically to as a separated patch later
tools/libxl/libxl_create.c | 2 +-
tools/libxl/libxl_dm.c | 273 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
tools/libxl/libxl_dom.c | 17 ++-
tools/libxl/libxl_internal.h | 11 +-
tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl | 7 ++
5 files changed, 307 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_create.c b/tools/libxl/libxl_create.c
index f75d4f1..c8a32d5 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_create.c
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_create.c
@@ -459,7 +459,7 @@ int libxl__domain_build(libxl__gc *gc,
switch (info->type) {
case LIBXL_DOMAIN_TYPE_HVM:
- ret = libxl__build_hvm(gc, domid, info, state);
+ ret = libxl__build_hvm(gc, domid, d_config, state);
if (ret)
goto out;
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_dm.c b/tools/libxl/libxl_dm.c
index 317a8eb..692258b 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_dm.c
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_dm.c
@@ -90,6 +90,279 @@ const char *libxl__domain_device_model(libxl__gc *gc,
return dm;
}
+static int
+libxl__xc_device_get_rdm(libxl__gc *gc,
+ uint32_t flag,
+ uint16_t seg,
+ uint8_t bus,
+ uint8_t devfn,
+ unsigned int *nr_entries,
+ struct xen_reserved_device_memory **xrdm)
+{
+ int rc = 0, r;
+
+ /*
+ * We really can't presume how many entries we can get in advance.
+ */
+ *nr_entries = 0;
+ r = xc_reserved_device_memory_map(CTX->xch, flag, seg, bus, devfn,
+ NULL, nr_entries);
+ assert(r <= 0);
+ /* "0" means we have no any rdm entry. */
+ if (!r) goto out;
+
+ if (errno != ENOBUFS) {
+ rc = ERROR_FAIL;
+ goto out;
+ }
+
+ *xrdm = libxl__malloc(gc,
+ *nr_entries * sizeof(xen_reserved_device_memory_t));
+ r = xc_reserved_device_memory_map(CTX->xch, flag, seg, bus, devfn,
+ *xrdm, nr_entries);
+ if (r)
+ rc = ERROR_FAIL;
+
+ out:
+ if (rc) {
+ *nr_entries = 0;
+ *xrdm = NULL;
+ LOG(ERROR, "Could not get reserved device memory maps.\n");
+ }
+ return rc;
+}
+
+/*
+ * Check whether there exists rdm hole in the specified memory range.
+ * Returns true if exists, else returns false.
+ */
+static bool overlaps_rdm(uint64_t start, uint64_t memsize,
+ uint64_t rdm_start, uint64_t rdm_size)
+{
+ return (start + memsize > rdm_start) && (start < rdm_start + rdm_size);
+}
+
+#define pfn_to_paddr(x) ((uint64_t)x << XC_PAGE_SHIFT)
+static void
+set_rdm_entries(libxl__gc *gc, libxl_domain_config *d_config,
+ uint64_t rdm_start, uint64_t rdm_size, int rdm_policy,
+ unsigned int nr_entries)
+{
+ assert(nr_entries);
+
+ d_config->num_rdms = nr_entries;
+ d_config->rdms = libxl__realloc(NOGC, d_config->rdms,
+ d_config->num_rdms * sizeof(libxl_device_rdm));
+
+ d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms - 1].start = rdm_start;
+ d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms - 1].size = rdm_size;
+ d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms - 1].policy = rdm_policy;
+}
+
+/*
+ * Check reported RDM regions and handle potential gfn conflicts according
+ * to user preferred policy.
+ *
+ * RDM can reside in address space beyond 4G theoretically, but we never
+ * see this in real world. So in order to avoid breaking highmem layout
+ * we don't solve highmem conflict. Note this means highmem rmrr could still
+ * be supported if no conflict.
+ *
+ * But in the case of lowmem, RDM probably scatter the whole RAM space.
+ * Especially multiple RDM entries would worsen this to lead a complicated
+ * memory layout. And then its hard to extend hvm_info_table{} to work
+ * hvmloader out. So here we're trying to figure out a simple solution to
+ * avoid breaking existing layout. So when a conflict occurs,
+ *
+ * #1. Above a predefined boundary (default 2G)
+ * - Move lowmem_end below reserved region to solve conflict;
+ *
+ * #2. Below a predefined boundary (default 2G)
+ * - Check strict/relaxed policy.
+ * "strict" policy leads to fail libxl.
+ * "relaxed" policy issue a warning message and also mask this entry
+ * INVALID to indicate we shouldn't expose this entry to hvmloader.
+ * Note when both policies are specified on a given region, the per-device
+ * policy should override the global policy.
+ */
+int libxl__domain_device_construct_rdm(libxl__gc *gc,
+ libxl_domain_config *d_config,
+ uint64_t rdm_mem_boundary,
+ struct xc_hvm_build_args *args)
+{
+ int i, j, conflict, rc;
+ struct xen_reserved_device_memory *xrdm = NULL;
+ uint32_t strategy = d_config->b_info.u.hvm.rdm.strategy;
+ uint16_t seg;
+ uint8_t bus, devfn;
+ uint64_t rdm_start, rdm_size;
+ uint64_t highmem_end = args->highmem_end ? args->highmem_end : (1ull<<32);
+
+ /* Might not expose rdm. */
+ if (strategy == LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_STRATEGY_IGNORE &&
+ !d_config->num_pcidevs)
+ return 0;
+
+ /* Query all RDM entries in this platform */
+ if (strategy == LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_STRATEGY_HOST) {
+ unsigned int nr_entries;
+
+ /* Collect all rdm info if exist. */
+ rc = libxl__xc_device_get_rdm(gc, PCI_DEV_RDM_ALL,
+ 0, 0, 0, &nr_entries, &xrdm);
+ if (rc)
+ goto out;
+ if (!nr_entries)
+ return 0;
+
+ assert(xrdm);
+
+ for (i = 0; i < nr_entries; i++)
+ set_rdm_entries(gc, d_config,
+ pfn_to_paddr(xrdm[i].start_pfn),
+ pfn_to_paddr(xrdm[i].nr_pages),
+ d_config->b_info.u.hvm.rdm.policy,
+ i+1);
+ } else {
+ d_config->num_rdms = 0;
+ }
+
+ /* Query RDM entries per-device */
+ for (i = 0; i < d_config->num_pcidevs; i++) {
+ unsigned int nr_entries;
+ bool new = true;
+
+ seg = d_config->pcidevs[i].domain;
+ bus = d_config->pcidevs[i].bus;
+ devfn = PCI_DEVFN(d_config->pcidevs[i].dev, d_config->pcidevs[i].func);
+ nr_entries = 0;
+ rc = libxl__xc_device_get_rdm(gc, ~PCI_DEV_RDM_ALL,
+ seg, bus, devfn, &nr_entries, &xrdm);
+ if (rc)
+ goto out;
+ /* No RDM to associated with this device. */
+ if (!nr_entries)
+ continue;
+
+ assert(xrdm);
+
+ /*
+ * Need to check whether this entry is already saved in the array.
+ * This could come from two cases:
+ *
+ * - user may configure to get all RDMs in this platform, which
+ * is already queried before this point
+ * - or two assigned devices may share one RDM entry
+ *
+ * Different policies may be configured on the same RDM due to above
+ * two cases. But we don't allow to assign such a group devies right
+ * now so it doesn't come true in our case.
+ */
+ for (j = 0; j < d_config->num_rdms; j++) {
+ if (d_config->rdms[j].start == pfn_to_paddr(xrdm[0].start_pfn))
+ {
+ /*
+ * So the per-device policy always override the global policy
+ * in this case.
+ */
+ d_config->rdms[j].policy = d_config->pcidevs[i].rdm_policy;
+ new = false;
+ break;
+ }
+ }
+
+ if (new) {
+ d_config->num_rdms++;
+ set_rdm_entries(gc, d_config,
+ pfn_to_paddr(xrdm[0].start_pfn),
+ pfn_to_paddr(xrdm[0].nr_pages),
+ d_config->pcidevs[i].rdm_policy,
+ d_config->num_rdms);
+ }
+ }
+
+ /*
+ * Next step is to check and avoid potential conflict between RDM entries
+ * and guest RAM. To avoid intrusive impact to existing memory layout
+ * {lowmem, mmio, highmem} which is passed around various function blocks,
+ * below conflicts are not handled which are rare and handling them would
+ * lead to a more scattered layout:
+ * - RDM in highmem area (>4G)
+ * - RDM lower than a defined memory boundary (e.g. 2G)
+ * Otherwise for conflicts between boundary and 4G, we'll simply move lowmem
+ * end below reserved region to solve conflict.
+ *
+ * If a conflict is detected on a given RDM entry, an error will be
+ * returned if 'strict' policy is specified. Instead, if 'relaxed' policy
+ * specified, this conflict is treated just as a warning, but we mark this
+ * RDM entry as INVALID to indicate that this entry shouldn't be exposed
+ * to hvmloader.
+ *
+ * Firstly we should check the case of rdm < 4G because we may need to
+ * expand highmem_end.
+ */
+ for (i = 0; i < d_config->num_rdms; i++) {
+ rdm_start = d_config->rdms[i].start;
+ rdm_size = d_config->rdms[i].size;
+ conflict = overlaps_rdm(0, args->lowmem_end, rdm_start, rdm_size);
+
+ if (!conflict)
+ continue;
+
+ /* Just check if RDM > our memory boundary. */
+ if (rdm_start > rdm_mem_boundary) {
+ /*
+ * We will move downwards lowmem_end so we have to expand
+ * highmem_end.
+ */
+ highmem_end += (args->lowmem_end - rdm_start);
+ /* Now move downwards lowmem_end. */
+ args->lowmem_end = rdm_start;
+ }
+ }
+
+ /* Sync highmem_end. */
+ args->highmem_end = highmem_end;
+
+ /*
+ * Finally we can take same policy to check lowmem(< 2G) and
+ * highmem adjusted above.
+ */
+ for (i = 0; i < d_config->num_rdms; i++) {
+ rdm_start = d_config->rdms[i].start;
+ rdm_size = d_config->rdms[i].size;
+ /* Does this entry conflict with lowmem? */
+ conflict = overlaps_rdm(0, args->lowmem_end,
+ rdm_start, rdm_size);
+ /* Does this entry conflict with highmem? */
+ conflict |= overlaps_rdm((1ULL<<32),
+ args->highmem_end - (1ULL<<32),
+ rdm_start, rdm_size);
+
+ if (!conflict)
+ continue;
+
+ if (d_config->rdms[i].policy == LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_POLICY_STRICT) {
+ LOG(ERROR, "RDM conflict at 0x%lx.\n", d_config->rdms[i].start);
+ goto out;
+ } else {
+ LOG(WARN, "Ignoring RDM conflict at 0x%lx.\n",
+ d_config->rdms[i].start);
+
+ /*
+ * Then mask this INVALID to indicate we shouldn't expose this
+ * to hvmloader.
+ */
+ d_config->rdms[i].policy = LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_POLICY_INVALID;
+ }
+ }
+
+ return 0;
+
+ out:
+ return ERROR_FAIL;
+}
+
const libxl_vnc_info *libxl__dm_vnc(const libxl_domain_config *guest_config)
{
const libxl_vnc_info *vnc = NULL;
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_dom.c b/tools/libxl/libxl_dom.c
index bdc0465..80fa17d 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_dom.c
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_dom.c
@@ -914,13 +914,20 @@ out:
}
int libxl__build_hvm(libxl__gc *gc, uint32_t domid,
- libxl_domain_build_info *info,
+ libxl_domain_config *d_config,
libxl__domain_build_state *state)
{
libxl_ctx *ctx = libxl__gc_owner(gc);
struct xc_hvm_build_args args = {};
int ret, rc = ERROR_FAIL;
uint64_t mmio_start, lowmem_end, highmem_end;
+ libxl_domain_build_info *const info = &d_config->b_info;
+ /*
+ * Currently we fix this as 2G to guarantee how to handle
+ * our rdm policy. But we'll provide a parameter to set
+ * this dynamically.
+ */
+ uint64_t rdm_mem_boundary = 0x80000000;
memset(&args, 0, sizeof(struct xc_hvm_build_args));
/* The params from the configuration file are in Mb, which are then
@@ -958,6 +965,14 @@ int libxl__build_hvm(libxl__gc *gc, uint32_t domid,
args.highmem_end = highmem_end;
args.mmio_start = mmio_start;
+ rc = libxl__domain_device_construct_rdm(gc, d_config,
+ rdm_mem_boundary,
+ &args);
+ if (rc) {
+ LOG(ERROR, "checking reserved device memory failed");
+ goto out;
+ }
+
if (info->num_vnuma_nodes != 0) {
int i;
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_internal.h b/tools/libxl/libxl_internal.h
index d397143..b4d8419 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_internal.h
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_internal.h
@@ -1057,7 +1057,7 @@ _hidden int libxl__build_post(libxl__gc *gc, uint32_t domid,
_hidden int libxl__build_pv(libxl__gc *gc, uint32_t domid,
libxl_domain_build_info *info, libxl__domain_build_state *state);
_hidden int libxl__build_hvm(libxl__gc *gc, uint32_t domid,
- libxl_domain_build_info *info,
+ libxl_domain_config *d_config,
libxl__domain_build_state *state);
_hidden int libxl__qemu_traditional_cmd(libxl__gc *gc, uint32_t domid,
@@ -1565,6 +1565,15 @@ _hidden int libxl__need_xenpv_qemu(libxl__gc *gc,
int nr_channels, libxl_device_channel *channels);
/*
+ * This function will fix reserved device memory conflict
+ * according to user's configuration.
+ */
+_hidden int libxl__domain_device_construct_rdm(libxl__gc *gc,
+ libxl_domain_config *d_config,
+ uint64_t rdm_mem_guard,
+ struct xc_hvm_build_args *args);
+
+/*
* This function will cause the whole libxl process to hang
* if the device model does not respond. It is deprecated.
*
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl b/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl
index 47dd83a..a3ad8d1 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl
@@ -562,6 +562,12 @@ libxl_device_pci = Struct("device_pci", [
("rdm_policy", libxl_rdm_reserve_policy),
])
+libxl_device_rdm = Struct("device_rdm", [
+ ("start", uint64),
+ ("size", uint64),
+ ("policy", libxl_rdm_reserve_policy),
+ ])
+
libxl_device_dtdev = Struct("device_dtdev", [
("path", string),
])
@@ -592,6 +598,7 @@ libxl_domain_config = Struct("domain_config", [
("disks", Array(libxl_device_disk, "num_disks")),
("nics", Array(libxl_device_nic, "num_nics")),
("pcidevs", Array(libxl_device_pci, "num_pcidevs")),
+ ("rdms", Array(libxl_device_rdm, "num_rdms")),
("dtdevs", Array(libxl_device_dtdev, "num_dtdevs")),
("vfbs", Array(libxl_device_vfb, "num_vfbs")),
("vkbs", Array(libxl_device_vkb, "num_vkbs")),
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* [v10][PATCH 12/16] tools: introduce a new parameter to set a predefined rdm boundary
2015-07-20 6:16 [v10][PATCH 00/16] Fix RMRR Tiejun Chen
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2015-07-20 6:16 ` [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM Tiejun Chen
@ 2015-07-20 6:16 ` Tiejun Chen
2015-07-20 6:17 ` [v10][PATCH 13/16] libxl: construct e820 map with RDM information for HVM guest Tiejun Chen
` (4 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread
From: Tiejun Chen @ 2015-07-20 6:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xen-devel; +Cc: Wei Liu, Ian Jackson, Ian Campbell, Stefano Stabellini
Previously we always fix that predefined boundary as 2G to handle
conflict between memory and rdm, but now this predefined boundar
can be changes with the parameter "rdm_mem_boundary" in .cfg file.
CC: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>
CC: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
CC: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
CC: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Acked-by: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Acked-by: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>
Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
---
v8 ~ v10:
* Nothing is changed.
v7:
* Just sync with the fallout of renaming parameters from patch #10.
v6:
* Nothing is changed.
v5:
* Make this variable "rdm_mem_boundary_memkb" specific to .hvm
v4:
* Separated from the previous patch to provide a parameter to set that
predefined boundary dynamically.
docs/man/xl.cfg.pod.5 | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
tools/libxl/libxl.h | 6 ++++++
tools/libxl/libxl_create.c | 4 ++++
tools/libxl/libxl_dom.c | 8 +-------
tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl | 1 +
tools/libxl/xl_cmdimpl.c | 3 +++
6 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/docs/man/xl.cfg.pod.5 b/docs/man/xl.cfg.pod.5
index 6c55a8b..23068ec 100644
--- a/docs/man/xl.cfg.pod.5
+++ b/docs/man/xl.cfg.pod.5
@@ -867,6 +867,28 @@ More information about Xen gfx_passthru feature is available
on the XenVGAPassthrough L<http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/XenVGAPassthrough>
wiki page.
+=item B<rdm_mem_boundary=MBYTES>
+
+Number of megabytes to set a boundary for checking rdm conflict.
+
+When RDM conflicts with RAM, RDM probably scatter the whole RAM space.
+Especially multiple RDM entries would worsen this to lead a complicated
+memory layout. So here we're trying to figure out a simple solution to
+avoid breaking existing layout. So when a conflict occurs,
+
+ #1. Above a predefined boundary
+ - move lowmem_end below reserved region to solve conflict;
+
+ #2. Below a predefined boundary
+ - Check strict/relaxed policy.
+ "strict" policy leads to fail libxl. Note when both policies
+ are specified on a given region, 'strict' is always preferred.
+ "relaxed" policy issue a warning message and also mask this
+ entry INVALID to indicate we shouldn't expose this entry to
+ hvmloader.
+
+Here the default is 2G.
+
=item B<dtdev=[ "DTDEV_PATH", "DTDEV_PATH", ... ]>
Specifies the host device tree nodes to passthrough to this guest. Each
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl.h b/tools/libxl/libxl.h
index a1c5d15..6f157c9 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl.h
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl.h
@@ -863,6 +863,12 @@ const char *libxl_defbool_to_string(libxl_defbool b);
#define LIBXL_TIMER_MODE_DEFAULT -1
#define LIBXL_MEMKB_DEFAULT ~0ULL
+/*
+ * We'd like to set a memory boundary to determine if we need to check
+ * any overlap with reserved device memory.
+ */
+#define LIBXL_RDM_MEM_BOUNDARY_MEMKB_DEFAULT (2048 * 1024)
+
#define LIBXL_MS_VM_GENID_LEN 16
typedef struct {
uint8_t bytes[LIBXL_MS_VM_GENID_LEN];
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_create.c b/tools/libxl/libxl_create.c
index c8a32d5..3de86a6 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_create.c
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_create.c
@@ -109,6 +109,10 @@ void libxl__rdm_setdefault(libxl__gc *gc, libxl_domain_build_info *b_info)
{
if (b_info->u.hvm.rdm.policy == LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_POLICY_INVALID)
b_info->u.hvm.rdm.policy = LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_POLICY_RELAXED;
+
+ if (b_info->u.hvm.rdm_mem_boundary_memkb == LIBXL_MEMKB_DEFAULT)
+ b_info->u.hvm.rdm_mem_boundary_memkb =
+ LIBXL_RDM_MEM_BOUNDARY_MEMKB_DEFAULT;
}
int libxl__domain_build_info_setdefault(libxl__gc *gc,
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_dom.c b/tools/libxl/libxl_dom.c
index 80fa17d..e41d54a 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_dom.c
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_dom.c
@@ -922,12 +922,6 @@ int libxl__build_hvm(libxl__gc *gc, uint32_t domid,
int ret, rc = ERROR_FAIL;
uint64_t mmio_start, lowmem_end, highmem_end;
libxl_domain_build_info *const info = &d_config->b_info;
- /*
- * Currently we fix this as 2G to guarantee how to handle
- * our rdm policy. But we'll provide a parameter to set
- * this dynamically.
- */
- uint64_t rdm_mem_boundary = 0x80000000;
memset(&args, 0, sizeof(struct xc_hvm_build_args));
/* The params from the configuration file are in Mb, which are then
@@ -966,7 +960,7 @@ int libxl__build_hvm(libxl__gc *gc, uint32_t domid,
args.mmio_start = mmio_start;
rc = libxl__domain_device_construct_rdm(gc, d_config,
- rdm_mem_boundary,
+ info->u.hvm.rdm_mem_boundary_memkb*1024,
&args);
if (rc) {
LOG(ERROR, "checking reserved device memory failed");
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl b/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl
index a3ad8d1..4eb4f8a 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl
@@ -484,6 +484,7 @@ libxl_domain_build_info = Struct("domain_build_info",[
("ms_vm_genid", libxl_ms_vm_genid),
("serial_list", libxl_string_list),
("rdm", libxl_rdm_reserve),
+ ("rdm_mem_boundary_memkb", MemKB),
])),
("pv", Struct(None, [("kernel", string),
("slack_memkb", MemKB),
diff --git a/tools/libxl/xl_cmdimpl.c b/tools/libxl/xl_cmdimpl.c
index c858068..dfb50d6 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/xl_cmdimpl.c
+++ b/tools/libxl/xl_cmdimpl.c
@@ -1519,6 +1519,9 @@ static void parse_config_data(const char *config_source,
exit(1);
}
}
+
+ if (!xlu_cfg_get_long (config, "rdm_mem_boundary", &l, 0))
+ b_info->u.hvm.rdm_mem_boundary_memkb = l * 1024;
break;
case LIBXL_DOMAIN_TYPE_PV:
{
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* [v10][PATCH 13/16] libxl: construct e820 map with RDM information for HVM guest
2015-07-20 6:16 [v10][PATCH 00/16] Fix RMRR Tiejun Chen
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2015-07-20 6:16 ` [v10][PATCH 12/16] tools: introduce a new parameter to set a predefined rdm boundary Tiejun Chen
@ 2015-07-20 6:17 ` Tiejun Chen
2015-07-20 13:34 ` Ian Jackson
2015-07-20 6:17 ` [v10][PATCH 14/16] xen/vtd: enable USB device assignment Tiejun Chen
` (3 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread
From: Tiejun Chen @ 2015-07-20 6:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xen-devel; +Cc: Wei Liu, Ian Jackson, Ian Campbell, Stefano Stabellini
Here we'll construct a basic guest e820 table via
XENMEM_set_memory_map. This table includes lowmem, highmem
and RDMs if they exist, and hvmloader would need this info
later.
Note this guest e820 table would be same as before if the
platform has no any RDM or we disable RDM (by default).
CC: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>
CC: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
CC: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
CC: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Acked-by: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
---
v8 ~ v10:
* Nothing is changed.
v7:
* Just sync with the fallout of renaming parameters from patch #10.
v6:
* Nothing is changed.
v5:
* Make this variable "rdm_mem_boundary_memkb" specific to .hvm
v4:
* Separated from the previous patch to provide a parameter to set that
predefined boundary dynamically.
tools/libxl/libxl_arch.h | 7 ++++
tools/libxl/libxl_arm.c | 8 +++++
tools/libxl/libxl_dom.c | 5 +++
tools/libxl/libxl_x86.c | 83 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4 files changed, 103 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_arch.h b/tools/libxl/libxl_arch.h
index d04871c..939178a 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_arch.h
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_arch.h
@@ -49,4 +49,11 @@ int libxl__arch_vnuma_build_vmemrange(libxl__gc *gc,
_hidden
int libxl__arch_domain_map_irq(libxl__gc *gc, uint32_t domid, int irq);
+/* arch specific to construct memory mapping function */
+_hidden
+int libxl__arch_domain_construct_memmap(libxl__gc *gc,
+ libxl_domain_config *d_config,
+ uint32_t domid,
+ struct xc_hvm_build_args *args);
+
#endif
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_arm.c b/tools/libxl/libxl_arm.c
index f09c860..1526467 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_arm.c
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_arm.c
@@ -926,6 +926,14 @@ int libxl__arch_domain_map_irq(libxl__gc *gc, uint32_t domid, int irq)
return xc_domain_bind_pt_spi_irq(CTX->xch, domid, irq, irq);
}
+int libxl__arch_domain_construct_memmap(libxl__gc *gc,
+ libxl_domain_config *d_config,
+ uint32_t domid,
+ struct xc_hvm_build_args *args)
+{
+ return 0;
+}
+
/*
* Local variables:
* mode: C
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_dom.c b/tools/libxl/libxl_dom.c
index e41d54a..a8c6aa9 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_dom.c
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_dom.c
@@ -1004,6 +1004,11 @@ int libxl__build_hvm(libxl__gc *gc, uint32_t domid,
goto out;
}
+ if (libxl__arch_domain_construct_memmap(gc, d_config, domid, &args)) {
+ LOG(ERROR, "setting domain memory map failed");
+ goto out;
+ }
+
ret = hvm_build_set_params(ctx->xch, domid, info, state->store_port,
&state->store_mfn, state->console_port,
&state->console_mfn, state->store_domid,
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_x86.c b/tools/libxl/libxl_x86.c
index ed2bd38..66b3d7f 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_x86.c
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_x86.c
@@ -438,6 +438,89 @@ int libxl__arch_domain_map_irq(libxl__gc *gc, uint32_t domid, int irq)
}
/*
+ * Here we're just trying to set these kinds of e820 mappings:
+ *
+ * #1. Low memory region
+ *
+ * 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.
+ * Note: Those stuffs below 1M are still constructed with multiple
+ * e820 entries by hvmloader. At this point we don't change anything.
+ *
+ * #2. RDM region if it exists
+ *
+ * #3. High memory region if it exists
+ *
+ * Note: these regions are not overlapping since we already check
+ * to adjust them. Please refer to libxl__domain_device_construct_rdm().
+ */
+#define GUEST_LOW_MEM_START_DEFAULT 0x100000
+int libxl__arch_domain_construct_memmap(libxl__gc *gc,
+ libxl_domain_config *d_config,
+ uint32_t domid,
+ struct xc_hvm_build_args *args)
+{
+ int rc = 0;
+ unsigned int nr = 0, i;
+ /* We always own at least one lowmem entry. */
+ unsigned int e820_entries = 1;
+ struct e820entry *e820 = NULL;
+ uint64_t highmem_size =
+ args->highmem_end ? args->highmem_end - (1ull << 32) : 0;
+
+ /* Add all rdm entries. */
+ for (i = 0; i < d_config->num_rdms; i++)
+ if (d_config->rdms[i].policy != LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_POLICY_INVALID)
+ e820_entries++;
+
+
+ /* If we should have a highmem range. */
+ if (highmem_size)
+ e820_entries++;
+
+ if (e820_entries >= E820MAX) {
+ LOG(ERROR, "Ooops! Too many entries in the memory map!\n");
+ rc = ERROR_INVAL;
+ goto out;
+ }
+
+ e820 = libxl__malloc(gc, sizeof(struct e820entry) * e820_entries);
+
+ /* Low memory */
+ e820[nr].addr = GUEST_LOW_MEM_START_DEFAULT;
+ e820[nr].size = args->lowmem_end - GUEST_LOW_MEM_START_DEFAULT;
+ e820[nr].type = E820_RAM;
+ nr++;
+
+ /* RDM mapping */
+ for (i = 0; i < d_config->num_rdms; i++) {
+ if (d_config->rdms[i].policy == LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_POLICY_INVALID)
+ continue;
+
+ e820[nr].addr = d_config->rdms[i].start;
+ e820[nr].size = d_config->rdms[i].size;
+ e820[nr].type = E820_RESERVED;
+ nr++;
+ }
+
+ /* High memory */
+ if (highmem_size) {
+ e820[nr].addr = ((uint64_t)1 << 32);
+ e820[nr].size = highmem_size;
+ e820[nr].type = E820_RAM;
+ }
+
+ if (xc_domain_set_memory_map(CTX->xch, domid, e820, e820_entries) != 0) {
+ rc = ERROR_FAIL;
+ goto out;
+ }
+
+out:
+ return rc;
+}
+
+/*
* Local variables:
* mode: C
* c-basic-offset: 4
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* [v10][PATCH 14/16] xen/vtd: enable USB device assignment
2015-07-20 6:16 [v10][PATCH 00/16] Fix RMRR Tiejun Chen
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2015-07-20 6:17 ` [v10][PATCH 13/16] libxl: construct e820 map with RDM information for HVM guest Tiejun Chen
@ 2015-07-20 6:17 ` Tiejun Chen
2015-07-20 6:17 ` [v10][PATCH 15/16] xen/vtd: prevent from assign the device with shared rmrr Tiejun Chen
` (2 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread
From: Tiejun Chen @ 2015-07-20 6:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xen-devel; +Cc: Yang Zhang, Kevin Tian
USB RMRR may conflict with guest BIOS region. In such case, identity
mapping setup is simply skipped in previous implementation. Now we
can handle this scenario cleanly with new policy mechanism so previous
hack code can be removed now.
CC: Yang Zhang <yang.z.zhang@intel.com>
CC: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
Acked-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
---
v5 ~ v10:
* Nothing is changed.
v4:
* Refine the patch head description
xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/dmar.h | 1 -
xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c | 11 ++---------
xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/utils.c | 7 -------
3 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
diff --git a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/dmar.h b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/dmar.h
index af1feef..af205f5 100644
--- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/dmar.h
+++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/dmar.h
@@ -129,7 +129,6 @@ do { \
int vtd_hw_check(void);
void disable_pmr(struct iommu *iommu);
-int is_usb_device(u16 seg, u8 bus, u8 devfn);
int is_igd_drhd(struct acpi_drhd_unit *drhd);
#endif /* _DMAR_H_ */
diff --git a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
index b5d658e..c8b0455 100644
--- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
+++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
@@ -2243,11 +2243,9 @@ static int reassign_device_ownership(
/*
* If the device belongs to the hardware domain, and it has RMRR, don't
* remove it from the hardware domain, because BIOS may use RMRR at
- * booting time. Also account for the special casing of USB below (in
- * intel_iommu_assign_device()).
+ * booting time.
*/
- if ( !is_hardware_domain(source) &&
- !is_usb_device(pdev->seg, pdev->bus, pdev->devfn) )
+ if ( !is_hardware_domain(source) )
{
const struct acpi_rmrr_unit *rmrr;
u16 bdf;
@@ -2300,13 +2298,8 @@ static int intel_iommu_assign_device(
if ( ret )
return ret;
- /* FIXME: Because USB RMRR conflicts with guest bios region,
- * ignore USB RMRR temporarily.
- */
seg = pdev->seg;
bus = pdev->bus;
- if ( is_usb_device(seg, bus, pdev->devfn) )
- return 0;
/* Setup rmrr identity mapping */
for_each_rmrr_device( rmrr, bdf, i )
diff --git a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/utils.c b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/utils.c
index bd14c02..b8a077f 100644
--- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/utils.c
+++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/utils.c
@@ -29,13 +29,6 @@
#include "extern.h"
#include <asm/io_apic.h>
-int is_usb_device(u16 seg, u8 bus, u8 devfn)
-{
- u16 class = pci_conf_read16(seg, bus, PCI_SLOT(devfn), PCI_FUNC(devfn),
- PCI_CLASS_DEVICE);
- return (class == 0xc03);
-}
-
/* Disable vt-d protected memory registers. */
void disable_pmr(struct iommu *iommu)
{
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* [v10][PATCH 15/16] xen/vtd: prevent from assign the device with shared rmrr
2015-07-20 6:16 [v10][PATCH 00/16] Fix RMRR Tiejun Chen
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2015-07-20 6:17 ` [v10][PATCH 14/16] xen/vtd: enable USB device assignment Tiejun Chen
@ 2015-07-20 6:17 ` Tiejun Chen
2015-07-20 6:17 ` [v10][PATCH 16/16] tools: parse to enable new rdm policy parameters Tiejun Chen
2015-07-20 10:37 ` [v10][PATCH 00/16] Fix RMRR George Dunlap
16 siblings, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread
From: Tiejun Chen @ 2015-07-20 6:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xen-devel; +Cc: Yang Zhang, Kevin Tian
Currently we're intending to cover this kind of devices
with shared RMRR simply since the case of shared RMRR is
a rare case according to our previous experiences. But
late we can group these devices which shared rmrr, and
then allow all devices within a group to be assigned to
same domain.
CC: Yang Zhang <yang.z.zhang@intel.com>
CC: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
Acked-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
---
v10:
* Noting is changed.
v9:
* Correct one indentation issue
v8:
* Merge two if{} as one if{}
* Add to print RMRR range info when stop assign a group device
v5 ~ v7:
* Nothing is changed.
v4:
* Refine one code comment.
xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
index c8b0455..770e484 100644
--- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
+++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
@@ -2294,13 +2294,37 @@ static int intel_iommu_assign_device(
if ( list_empty(&acpi_drhd_units) )
return -ENODEV;
+ seg = pdev->seg;
+ bus = pdev->bus;
+ /*
+ * In rare cases one given rmrr is shared by multiple devices but
+ * obviously this would put the security of a system at risk. So
+ * we should prevent from this sort of device assignment.
+ *
+ * TODO: in the future we can introduce group device assignment
+ * interface to make sure devices sharing RMRR are assigned to the
+ * same domain together.
+ */
+ for_each_rmrr_device( rmrr, bdf, i )
+ {
+ if ( rmrr->segment == seg &&
+ PCI_BUS(bdf) == bus &&
+ PCI_DEVFN2(bdf) == devfn &&
+ rmrr->scope.devices_cnt > 1 )
+ {
+ printk(XENLOG_G_ERR VTDPREFIX
+ " cannot assign %04x:%02x:%02x.%u"
+ " with shared RMRR at %"PRIx64" for Dom%d.\n",
+ seg, bus, PCI_SLOT(devfn), PCI_FUNC(devfn),
+ rmrr->base_address, d->domain_id);
+ return -EPERM;
+ }
+ }
+
ret = reassign_device_ownership(hardware_domain, d, devfn, pdev);
if ( ret )
return ret;
- seg = pdev->seg;
- bus = pdev->bus;
-
/* Setup rmrr identity mapping */
for_each_rmrr_device( rmrr, bdf, i )
{
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* [v10][PATCH 16/16] tools: parse to enable new rdm policy parameters
2015-07-20 6:16 [v10][PATCH 00/16] Fix RMRR Tiejun Chen
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2015-07-20 6:17 ` [v10][PATCH 15/16] xen/vtd: prevent from assign the device with shared rmrr Tiejun Chen
@ 2015-07-20 6:17 ` Tiejun Chen
2015-07-20 13:43 ` Ian Jackson
2015-07-20 10:37 ` [v10][PATCH 00/16] Fix RMRR George Dunlap
16 siblings, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread
From: Tiejun Chen @ 2015-07-20 6:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xen-devel; +Cc: Wei Liu, Ian Jackson, Ian Campbell, Stefano Stabellini
This patch parses to enable user configurable parameters to specify
RDM resource and according policies which are defined previously,
Global RDM parameter:
rdm = "strategy=host,policy=strict/relaxed"
Per-device RDM parameter:
pci = [ 'sbdf, rdm_policy=strict/relaxed' ]
Default per-device RDM policy is same as default global RDM policy as being
'relaxed'. And the per-device policy would override the global policy like
others.
CC: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>
CC: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
CC: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
CC: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Acked-by: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
---
v9 ~ v10:
* Nothing is changed.
v8:
* Clean some codes style issues.
v7:
* Just sync with the fallout of renaming parameters from patch #10.
v6:
* Just sync those renames introduced by patch #10.
v5:
* Need a rebase after we make all rdm variables specific to .hvm.
* Like other pci option, the per-device policy always follows
the global policy by default.
v4:
* Separated from current patch #11 to parse/enable our rdm policy parameters
since its make a lot sense and these stuffs are specific to xl/libxlu.
tools/libxl/libxlu_pci.c | 92 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
tools/libxl/libxlutil.h | 4 +++
tools/libxl/xl_cmdimpl.c | 13 +++++++
3 files changed, 108 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxlu_pci.c b/tools/libxl/libxlu_pci.c
index 26fb143..026413b 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxlu_pci.c
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxlu_pci.c
@@ -42,6 +42,9 @@ static int pcidev_struct_fill(libxl_device_pci *pcidev, unsigned int domain,
#define STATE_OPTIONS_K 6
#define STATE_OPTIONS_V 7
#define STATE_TERMINAL 8
+#define STATE_TYPE 9
+#define STATE_RDM_STRATEGY 10
+#define STATE_RESERVE_POLICY 11
int xlu_pci_parse_bdf(XLU_Config *cfg, libxl_device_pci *pcidev, const char *str)
{
unsigned state = STATE_DOMAIN;
@@ -143,7 +146,18 @@ int xlu_pci_parse_bdf(XLU_Config *cfg, libxl_device_pci *pcidev, const char *str
pcidev->permissive = atoi(tok);
}else if ( !strcmp(optkey, "seize") ) {
pcidev->seize = atoi(tok);
- }else{
+ } else if (!strcmp(optkey, "rdm_policy")) {
+ if (!strcmp(tok, "strict")) {
+ pcidev->rdm_policy = LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_POLICY_STRICT;
+ } else if (!strcmp(tok, "relaxed")) {
+ pcidev->rdm_policy = LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_POLICY_RELAXED;
+ } else {
+ XLU__PCI_ERR(cfg, "%s is not an valid PCI RDM property"
+ " policy: 'strict' or 'relaxed'.",
+ tok);
+ goto parse_error;
+ }
+ } else {
XLU__PCI_ERR(cfg, "Unknown PCI BDF option: %s", optkey);
}
tok = ptr + 1;
@@ -167,6 +181,82 @@ parse_error:
return ERROR_INVAL;
}
+int xlu_rdm_parse(XLU_Config *cfg, libxl_rdm_reserve *rdm, const char *str)
+{
+ unsigned state = STATE_TYPE;
+ char *buf2, *tok, *ptr, *end;
+
+ if (NULL == (buf2 = ptr = strdup(str)))
+ return ERROR_NOMEM;
+
+ for (tok = ptr, end = ptr + strlen(ptr) + 1; ptr < end; ptr++) {
+ switch(state) {
+ case STATE_TYPE:
+ if (*ptr == '=') {
+ state = STATE_RDM_STRATEGY;
+ *ptr = '\0';
+ if (strcmp(tok, "strategy")) {
+ XLU__PCI_ERR(cfg, "Unknown RDM state option: %s", tok);
+ goto parse_error;
+ }
+ tok = ptr + 1;
+ }
+ break;
+ case STATE_RDM_STRATEGY:
+ if (*ptr == '\0' || *ptr == ',') {
+ state = STATE_RESERVE_POLICY;
+ *ptr = '\0';
+ if (!strcmp(tok, "host")) {
+ rdm->strategy = LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_STRATEGY_HOST;
+ } else {
+ XLU__PCI_ERR(cfg, "Unknown RDM strategy option: %s", tok);
+ goto parse_error;
+ }
+ tok = ptr + 1;
+ }
+ break;
+ case STATE_RESERVE_POLICY:
+ if (*ptr == '=') {
+ state = STATE_OPTIONS_V;
+ *ptr = '\0';
+ if (strcmp(tok, "policy")) {
+ XLU__PCI_ERR(cfg, "Unknown RDM property value: %s", tok);
+ goto parse_error;
+ }
+ tok = ptr + 1;
+ }
+ break;
+ case STATE_OPTIONS_V:
+ if (*ptr == ',' || *ptr == '\0') {
+ state = STATE_TERMINAL;
+ *ptr = '\0';
+ if (!strcmp(tok, "strict")) {
+ rdm->policy = LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_POLICY_STRICT;
+ } else if (!strcmp(tok, "relaxed")) {
+ rdm->policy = LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_POLICY_RELAXED;
+ } else {
+ XLU__PCI_ERR(cfg, "Unknown RDM property policy value: %s",
+ tok);
+ goto parse_error;
+ }
+ tok = ptr + 1;
+ }
+ default:
+ break;
+ }
+ }
+
+ free(buf2);
+
+ if (tok != ptr || state != STATE_TERMINAL)
+ goto parse_error;
+
+ return 0;
+
+parse_error:
+ return ERROR_INVAL;
+}
+
/*
* Local variables:
* mode: C
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxlutil.h b/tools/libxl/libxlutil.h
index 989605a..e81b644 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxlutil.h
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxlutil.h
@@ -106,6 +106,10 @@ int xlu_disk_parse(XLU_Config *cfg, int nspecs, const char *const *specs,
*/
int xlu_pci_parse_bdf(XLU_Config *cfg, libxl_device_pci *pcidev, const char *str);
+/*
+ * RDM parsing
+ */
+int xlu_rdm_parse(XLU_Config *cfg, libxl_rdm_reserve *rdm, const char *str);
/*
* Vif rate parsing.
diff --git a/tools/libxl/xl_cmdimpl.c b/tools/libxl/xl_cmdimpl.c
index dfb50d6..38d6c53 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/xl_cmdimpl.c
+++ b/tools/libxl/xl_cmdimpl.c
@@ -1923,6 +1923,14 @@ skip_vfb:
xlu_cfg_get_defbool(config, "e820_host", &b_info->u.pv.e820_host, 0);
}
+ if (!xlu_cfg_get_string(config, "rdm", &buf, 0)) {
+ libxl_rdm_reserve rdm;
+ if (!xlu_rdm_parse(config, &rdm, buf)) {
+ b_info->u.hvm.rdm.strategy = rdm.strategy;
+ b_info->u.hvm.rdm.policy = rdm.policy;
+ }
+ }
+
if (!xlu_cfg_get_list (config, "pci", &pcis, 0, 0)) {
d_config->num_pcidevs = 0;
d_config->pcidevs = NULL;
@@ -1937,6 +1945,11 @@ skip_vfb:
pcidev->power_mgmt = pci_power_mgmt;
pcidev->permissive = pci_permissive;
pcidev->seize = pci_seize;
+ /*
+ * Like other pci option, the per-device policy always follows
+ * the global policy by default.
+ */
+ pcidev->rdm_policy = b_info->u.hvm.rdm.policy;
if (!xlu_pci_parse_bdf(config, pcidev, buf))
d_config->num_pcidevs++;
}
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 00/16] Fix RMRR
2015-07-20 6:16 [v10][PATCH 00/16] Fix RMRR Tiejun Chen
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2015-07-20 6:17 ` [v10][PATCH 16/16] tools: parse to enable new rdm policy parameters Tiejun Chen
@ 2015-07-20 10:37 ` George Dunlap
2015-07-20 12:39 ` Chen, Tiejun
16 siblings, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread
From: George Dunlap @ 2015-07-20 10:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tiejun Chen; +Cc: xen-devel
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 7:16 AM, Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@intel.com> wrote:
> v10:
>
> * Patch #6: hvmloader/pci: Try to avoid placing BARs in RMRRs
> This is from George' draft patch which implements an acceptable
> solution in current cycle. Here I just implemented check_overlap_all() and
> some cleanups.
>
> * Patch #7: hvmloader/e820: construct guest e820 table
> Instead of correcting e820, I'd like to correct memory_map.map[]
> and then copy them into e820 directly. I think this can make sure
> hvm_info, memory_map.map[] and e820 are on the same page.
One brief request -- if you do end up sending this series again, can
you please rebase to staging? This is the second time I've had to
manually fix up some patches so that they apply.
Thanks.
-George
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 06/16] hvmloader/pci: Try to avoid placing BARs in RMRRs
2015-07-20 6:16 ` [v10][PATCH 06/16] hvmloader/pci: Try to avoid placing BARs in RMRRs Tiejun Chen
@ 2015-07-20 11:00 ` George Dunlap
2015-07-20 11:30 ` Jan Beulich
1 sibling, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread
From: George Dunlap @ 2015-07-20 11:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tiejun Chen; +Cc: xen-devel
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 7:16 AM, Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@intel.com> wrote:
> Try to avoid placing PCI BARs over RMRRs:
>
> - If mmio_hole_size is not specified, and the existing MMIO range has
> RMRRs in it, and there is space to expand the hole in lowmem without
> moving more memory, then make the MMIO hole as large as possible.
>
> - When placing RMRRs, find the next RMRR higher than the current base
> in the lowmem mmio hole. If it overlaps, skip ahead of it and find
> the next one.
>
> This certainly won't work in all cases, but it should work in a
> significant number of cases. Additionally, users should be able to
> work around problems by setting mmio_hole_size larger in the guest
> config.
>
> Signed-off-by: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
> Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
> ---
> v10:
>
> * This is from George' draft patch which implements an acceptable solution in
> current cycle. Here I just implemented check_overlap_all() and some cleanups.
Changes:
Reviewed-by: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 06/16] hvmloader/pci: Try to avoid placing BARs in RMRRs
2015-07-20 6:16 ` [v10][PATCH 06/16] hvmloader/pci: Try to avoid placing BARs in RMRRs Tiejun Chen
2015-07-20 11:00 ` George Dunlap
@ 2015-07-20 11:30 ` Jan Beulich
2015-07-20 12:52 ` George Dunlap
1 sibling, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread
From: Jan Beulich @ 2015-07-20 11:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: George Dunlap, Tiejun Chen; +Cc: xen-devel
>>> On 20.07.15 at 08:16, <tiejun.chen@intel.com> wrote:
> --- a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/pci.c
> +++ b/tools/firmware/hvmloader/pci.c
> @@ -38,6 +38,43 @@ uint64_t pci_hi_mem_start = 0, pci_hi_mem_end = 0;
> enum virtual_vga virtual_vga = VGA_none;
> unsigned long igd_opregion_pgbase = 0;
>
> +/* Check if any conflicts with all reserved device memory. */
/* Check if the specified range conflicts with any reserved device memory. */
(and the "any" could perhaps be left out)
> +static bool check_overlap_all(uint64_t start, uint64_t size)
> +{
> + unsigned int i;
> +
> + for ( i = 0; i < memory_map.nr_map; i++ )
> + {
> + if ( memory_map.map[i].type == E820_RESERVED &&
> + check_overlap(start, size,
> + memory_map.map[i].addr,
> + memory_map.map[i].size) )
> + return true;
> + }
> +
> + return false;
> +}
> +
> +/* Find the lowest RMRR higher than base. */
> +static int find_next_rmrr(uint32_t base)
> +{
> + unsigned int i;
> + int next_rmrr = -1;
> + uint64_t min_base = (1ull << 32);
> +
> + for ( i = 0; i < memory_map.nr_map ; i++ )
> + {
> + if ( memory_map.map[i].type == E820_RESERVED &&
> + memory_map.map[i].addr > base &&
> + memory_map.map[i].addr < min_base )
> + {
> + next_rmrr = i;
> + min_base = memory_map.map[i].addr;
> + }
> + }
> + return next_rmrr;
> +}
Considering _both_ callers, I think the function should actually return
the lowest RMRR higher than or equal to base. Or wait - we actually
need to find the lowest RMRR the _end_ of which is higher than base.
Also - blank line before final return statement please.
> @@ -299,6 +337,15 @@ void pci_setup(void)
> || (((pci_mem_start << 1) >> PAGE_SHIFT)
> >= hvm_info->low_mem_pgend)) )
> pci_mem_start <<= 1;
> +
> + /*
> + * Try to accomodate RMRRs in our MMIO region on a best-effort basis.
> + * If we have RMRRs in the range, then make pci_mem_start just after
> + * hvm_info->low_mem_pgend.
> + */
> + if ( pci_mem_start > (hvm_info->low_mem_pgend << PAGE_SHIFT) &&
> + check_overlap_all(pci_mem_start, pci_mem_end-pci_mem_start) )
> + pci_mem_start = ((hvm_info->low_mem_pgend + 1) << PAGE_SHIFT);
Since it looks like low_mem_pgend is exclusive, is the "+ 1" here
really needed (other than to put an arbitrary one page gap
between RAM and MMIO)?
> @@ -407,6 +456,19 @@ void pci_setup(void)
> }
>
> base = (resource->base + bar_sz - 1) & ~(uint64_t)(bar_sz - 1);
> +
> + /* If we're using mem_resource, check for RMRR conflicts. */
> + while ( resource == &mem_resource &&
> + next_rmrr > 0 &&
>= I think.
> + check_overlap(base, bar_sz,
> + memory_map.map[next_rmrr].addr,
> + memory_map.map[next_rmrr].size) )
> + {
> + base = memory_map.map[next_rmrr].addr + memory_map.map[next_rmrr].size;
> + base = (base + bar_sz - 1) & ~(uint64_t)(bar_sz - 1);
Pointless cast.
And as George said elsewhere - please make sure the whole series
applies cleanly to staging; generally committers don't do fixups while
applying.
Jan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 07/16] hvmloader/e820: construct guest e820 table
2015-07-20 6:16 ` [v10][PATCH 07/16] hvmloader/e820: construct guest e820 table Tiejun Chen
@ 2015-07-20 11:56 ` Jan Beulich
2015-07-20 14:35 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-20 13:00 ` George Dunlap
1 sibling, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread
From: Jan Beulich @ 2015-07-20 11:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tiejun Chen
Cc: Wei Liu, Ian Campbell, Stefano Stabellini, Andrew Cooper,
Ian Jackson, xen-devel, Keir Fraser
>>> On 20.07.15 at 08:16, <tiejun.chen@intel.com> wrote:
> + /* If there was no highmem region, just create one. */
> + if ( i == memory_map.nr_map )
> + {
> + memory_map.map[i].addr = ((uint64_t)1 << 32);
> + memory_map.map[i].size = add_high_mem;
> + memory_map.map[i].type = E820_RAM;
Don't you need to increment memory_map.nr_map here?
> + }
> +
> + /* A sanity check if high memory is broken. */
> + BUG_ON( high_mem_end !=
> + memory_map.map[i].addr + memory_map.map[i].size);
> + }
> +
> + /* Now fulfill e820. */
s/fulfill/fill/.
> + /* Finally we need to sort all e820 entries. */
> + for ( j = 0; j < nr-1; j++ )
> + {
> + for ( i = j+1; i < nr; i++ )
Blanks around binary operators please.
Jan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 00/16] Fix RMRR
2015-07-20 10:37 ` [v10][PATCH 00/16] Fix RMRR George Dunlap
@ 2015-07-20 12:39 ` Chen, Tiejun
0 siblings, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread
From: Chen, Tiejun @ 2015-07-20 12:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: George Dunlap; +Cc: xen-devel
> One brief request -- if you do end up sending this series again, can
> you please rebase to staging? This is the second time I've had to
> manually fix up some patches so that they apply.
>
Sorry for this inconvenience.
Thanks
Tiejun
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 06/16] hvmloader/pci: Try to avoid placing BARs in RMRRs
2015-07-20 11:30 ` Jan Beulich
@ 2015-07-20 12:52 ` George Dunlap
2015-07-20 14:06 ` Chen, Tiejun
0 siblings, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread
From: George Dunlap @ 2015-07-20 12:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Beulich, George Dunlap, Tiejun Chen; +Cc: xen-devel
On 07/20/2015 12:30 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 20.07.15 at 08:16, <tiejun.chen@intel.com> wrote:
>> --- a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/pci.c
>> +++ b/tools/firmware/hvmloader/pci.c
>> @@ -38,6 +38,43 @@ uint64_t pci_hi_mem_start = 0, pci_hi_mem_end = 0;
>> enum virtual_vga virtual_vga = VGA_none;
>> unsigned long igd_opregion_pgbase = 0;
>>
>> +/* Check if any conflicts with all reserved device memory. */
>
> /* Check if the specified range conflicts with any reserved device memory. */
>
> (and the "any" could perhaps be left out)
>
>> +static bool check_overlap_all(uint64_t start, uint64_t size)
>> +{
>> + unsigned int i;
>> +
>> + for ( i = 0; i < memory_map.nr_map; i++ )
>> + {
>> + if ( memory_map.map[i].type == E820_RESERVED &&
>> + check_overlap(start, size,
>> + memory_map.map[i].addr,
>> + memory_map.map[i].size) )
>> + return true;
>> + }
>> +
>> + return false;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/* Find the lowest RMRR higher than base. */
>> +static int find_next_rmrr(uint32_t base)
>> +{
>> + unsigned int i;
>> + int next_rmrr = -1;
>> + uint64_t min_base = (1ull << 32);
>> +
>> + for ( i = 0; i < memory_map.nr_map ; i++ )
>> + {
>> + if ( memory_map.map[i].type == E820_RESERVED &&
>> + memory_map.map[i].addr > base &&
>> + memory_map.map[i].addr < min_base )
>> + {
>> + next_rmrr = i;
>> + min_base = memory_map.map[i].addr;
>> + }
>> + }
>> + return next_rmrr;
>> +}
>
> Considering _both_ callers, I think the function should actually return
> the lowest RMRR higher than or equal to base.
You mean instead of strictly greater than the base.
> Or wait - we actually
> need to find the lowest RMRR the _end_ of which is higher than base.
Yes, you're right: there's always a risk that pci_mem_start will *start*
in the middle of a range. Looking for the next *end* is more robust.
>> @@ -407,6 +456,19 @@ void pci_setup(void)
>> }
>>
>> base = (resource->base + bar_sz - 1) & ~(uint64_t)(bar_sz - 1);
>> +
>> + /* If we're using mem_resource, check for RMRR conflicts. */
>> + while ( resource == &mem_resource &&
>> + next_rmrr > 0 &&
>
>> = I think.
Yes, > is a typo; I certainly meant to type >=.
>
>> + check_overlap(base, bar_sz,
>> + memory_map.map[next_rmrr].addr,
>> + memory_map.map[next_rmrr].size) )
>> + {
>> + base = memory_map.map[next_rmrr].addr + memory_map.map[next_rmrr].size;
>> + base = (base + bar_sz - 1) & ~(uint64_t)(bar_sz - 1);
>
> Pointless cast.
This was copy-and-pasted from the line above. I had assumed that bar_sz
was uint32_t (perhaps it was at some point), but I guess now it's
pointless there too. :-)
-George
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 07/16] hvmloader/e820: construct guest e820 table
2015-07-20 6:16 ` [v10][PATCH 07/16] hvmloader/e820: construct guest e820 table Tiejun Chen
2015-07-20 11:56 ` Jan Beulich
@ 2015-07-20 13:00 ` George Dunlap
2015-07-20 13:23 ` Chen, Tiejun
1 sibling, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread
From: George Dunlap @ 2015-07-20 13:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tiejun Chen
Cc: Keir Fraser, Ian Campbell, Stefano Stabellini, Andrew Cooper,
Ian Jackson, xen-devel, Jan Beulich, Wei Liu
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 7:16 AM, Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@intel.com> wrote:
> Now use the hypervisor-supplied memory map to build our final e820 table:
> * Add regions for BIOS ranges and other special mappings not in the
> hypervisor map
> * Add in the hypervisor supplied regions
> * Adjust the lowmem and highmem regions if we've had to relocate
> memory (adding a highmem region if necessary)
> * Sort all the ranges so that they appear in memory order.
>
> CC: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
> CC: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> CC: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
> CC: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>
> CC: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
> CC: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
> CC: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
> Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
> ---
> v10:
>
> * Instead of correcting e820, I'd like to correct memory_map.map[]
> and then copy them into e820 directly. I think this can make sure
> hvm_info, memory_map.map[] and e820 are on the same page.
Actually, now that you mention it -- this should probably happen
instead when we update hvm_info->{low,high}_mem_pgend.
I'm happy to leave this where it is for now, so with Jan's comments
addressed (in particular, incrementing nr_map):
Reviewed-by: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
But if we have time it might be better to pull the loop in pci_setup()
which moves the memory out into a function, and have that function
modify the lowmem and highmem map[] entries at the same time we modify
low_mem_pgend and high_mem_pgend. Alternately, you could put that on
your list of clean-ups to hvmloader for 4.7.
Thanks,
-George
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 07/16] hvmloader/e820: construct guest e820 table
2015-07-20 13:00 ` George Dunlap
@ 2015-07-20 13:23 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-20 13:50 ` George Dunlap
0 siblings, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread
From: Chen, Tiejun @ 2015-07-20 13:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: George Dunlap
Cc: Keir Fraser, Ian Campbell, Stefano Stabellini, Andrew Cooper,
Ian Jackson, xen-devel, Jan Beulich, Wei Liu
>> v10:
>>
>> * Instead of correcting e820, I'd like to correct memory_map.map[]
>> and then copy them into e820 directly. I think this can make sure
>> hvm_info, memory_map.map[] and e820 are on the same page.
>
> Actually, now that you mention it -- this should probably happen
> instead when we update hvm_info->{low,high}_mem_pgend.
I also considered this point previously but I thought just right now we
only update hvm_info->low/high_mem_pgend inside pci_setup(). But you
can't guarantee this would be a sole place in the future. Instead,
memory_map.map[] would always be copied into e820 when we build e820 table.
So I think we'd better do this update once at the last minute.
Thanks
Tiejun
>
> I'm happy to leave this where it is for now, so with Jan's comments
> addressed (in particular, incrementing nr_map):
>
> Reviewed-by: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
>
> But if we have time it might be better to pull the loop in pci_setup()
> which moves the memory out into a function, and have that function
> modify the lowmem and highmem map[] entries at the same time we modify
> low_mem_pgend and high_mem_pgend. Alternately, you could put that on
> your list of clean-ups to hvmloader for 4.7.
>
> Thanks,
> -George
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM
2015-07-20 6:16 ` [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM Tiejun Chen
@ 2015-07-20 13:32 ` Ian Jackson
2015-07-20 14:40 ` Chen, Tiejun
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 74+ messages in thread
From: Ian Jackson @ 2015-07-20 13:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tiejun Chen; +Cc: Stefano Stabellini, Wei Liu, Ian Campbell, xen-devel
Tiejun Chen writes ("[v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM"):
> While building a VM, HVM domain builder provides struct hvm_info_table{}
> to help hvmloader. Currently it includes two fields to construct guest
> e820 table by hvmloader, low_mem_pgend and high_mem_pgend. So we should
> check them to fix any conflict with RDM.
...
Thanks. I think this patch is nearly there.
> +static int
> +libxl__xc_device_get_rdm(libxl__gc *gc,
...
> + *xrdm = libxl__malloc(gc,
> + *nr_entries * sizeof(xen_reserved_device_memory_t));
Sorry for not spotting this before, but this should use GCNEW_ARRAY.
> +}
> +
> +#define pfn_to_paddr(x) ((uint64_t)x << XC_PAGE_SHIFT)
> +static void
Missing blank line after the #define - although I think this #define
could profitably be moved to libxl_internal.h. If you do keep it here
please move it further up the file, to at least before any function
or struct definition.
Also the #define is missing safety ( ) around x.
> +set_rdm_entries(libxl__gc *gc, libxl_domain_config *d_config,
> + uint64_t rdm_start, uint64_t rdm_size, int rdm_policy,
> + unsigned int nr_entries)
> +{
> + assert(nr_entries);
> +
> + d_config->num_rdms = nr_entries;
> + d_config->rdms = libxl__realloc(NOGC, d_config->rdms,
> + d_config->num_rdms * sizeof(libxl_device_rdm));
> +
> + d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms - 1].start = rdm_start;
> + d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms - 1].size = rdm_size;
> + d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms - 1].policy = rdm_policy;
> +}
Thanks for breaking this out. I think though that the division of
labour between this function and the call site is confusing.
Can I suggest a function
void add_rdm_entry(libxl__gc *gc, libxl_domain_config *d_config,
uint64_t rdm_start, uint64_t rdm_size, int rdm_policy)
which assumes that d_config->num_rdms is set correctly, and increments
it ?
(Please put the increment at the end so that the assignments are to
->rdms[d_config->num_rdms], or perhaps make a convenience alias.)
> +int libxl__domain_device_construct_rdm(libxl__gc *gc,
> + libxl_domain_config *d_config,
> + uint64_t rdm_mem_boundary,
> + struct xc_hvm_build_args *args)
> +{
...
> + /* Query all RDM entries in this platform */
> + if (strategy == LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_STRATEGY_HOST) {
...
> + } else {
> + d_config->num_rdms = 0;
> + }
Does this not override the domain configuration's num_rdms ? I don't
think that is correct.
If the domain configuration has rdms and num_rdms already set, then
the strategy should presumably be ignored. (Passing the same domain
configuration struct to libxl_domain_create_new, after destroying the
domain, ought to work, even after the first call has modified it.)
Can you please also wrap at least the already-word-wrapped comments to
70 (or maybe 75) columns ? What you have lookes like this when I
quote it for review:
> + * Next step is to check and avoid potential conflict between RDM entri\
es
> + * and guest RAM. To avoid intrusive impact to existing memory layout
> + * {lowmem, mmio, highmem} which is passed around various function bloc\
ks,
> + * below conflicts are not handled which are rare and handling them wou\
ld
Thanks,
Ian.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 13/16] libxl: construct e820 map with RDM information for HVM guest
2015-07-20 6:17 ` [v10][PATCH 13/16] libxl: construct e820 map with RDM information for HVM guest Tiejun Chen
@ 2015-07-20 13:34 ` Ian Jackson
0 siblings, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread
From: Ian Jackson @ 2015-07-20 13:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tiejun Chen; +Cc: Stefano Stabellini, Wei Liu, Ian Campbell, xen-devel
Tiejun Chen writes ("[v10][PATCH 13/16] libxl: construct e820 map with RDM information for HVM guest"):
> Here we'll construct a basic guest e820 table via
> XENMEM_set_memory_map. This table includes lowmem, highmem
> and RDMs if they exist, and hvmloader would need this info
> later.
>
> Note this guest e820 table would be same as before if the
> platform has no any RDM or we disable RDM (by default).
>
> CC: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>
> CC: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
> CC: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
> CC: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
> Acked-by: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
> Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
Acked-by: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 16/16] tools: parse to enable new rdm policy parameters
2015-07-20 6:17 ` [v10][PATCH 16/16] tools: parse to enable new rdm policy parameters Tiejun Chen
@ 2015-07-20 13:43 ` Ian Jackson
2015-07-20 13:53 ` Chen, Tiejun
0 siblings, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread
From: Ian Jackson @ 2015-07-20 13:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tiejun Chen; +Cc: Stefano Stabellini, Wei Liu, Ian Campbell, xen-devel
Tiejun Chen writes ("[v10][PATCH 16/16] tools: parse to enable new rdm policy parameters"):
> This patch parses to enable user configurable parameters to specify
> RDM resource and according policies which are defined previously,
>
> Global RDM parameter:
> rdm = "strategy=host,policy=strict/relaxed"
> Per-device RDM parameter:
> pci = [ 'sbdf, rdm_policy=strict/relaxed' ]
>
> Default per-device RDM policy is same as default global RDM policy as being
> 'relaxed'. And the per-device policy would override the global policy like
> others.
>
> CC: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>
> CC: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
> CC: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
> CC: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
> Acked-by: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
For clarity:
I am not acking this patch, primarily because I am not happy with the
code in xlu_rdm_parse which is (a) the result of repeated
clone-and-hack and (b) consists of ad-hoc string pointer fiddling.
If I had been able to review this patch earlier in the release cycle I
would be explictly nacking this patch. It is true that maybe someone
will have some time to clean this up later; but in practice it often
turns out that they don't - which is why we usually try not to accept
patches on the basis of promises to do further cleanup.
However, I am late to this party. I first made this complaint in
response to v7 on the 9th of July. Under the circumstances I am going
to stand aside and neither ack nor nack this patch.
The rules then say that the patch may be committed given that it has
Wei's ack as a tools maintainer.
Ian.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 07/16] hvmloader/e820: construct guest e820 table
2015-07-20 13:23 ` Chen, Tiejun
@ 2015-07-20 13:50 ` George Dunlap
2015-07-20 13:57 ` Chen, Tiejun
0 siblings, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread
From: George Dunlap @ 2015-07-20 13:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chen, Tiejun
Cc: Keir Fraser, Ian Campbell, Stefano Stabellini, Andrew Cooper,
Ian Jackson, xen-devel, Jan Beulich, Wei Liu
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Chen, Tiejun <tiejun.chen@intel.com> wrote:
>>> v10:
>>>
>>> * Instead of correcting e820, I'd like to correct memory_map.map[]
>>> and then copy them into e820 directly. I think this can make sure
>>> hvm_info, memory_map.map[] and e820 are on the same page.
>>
>>
>> Actually, now that you mention it -- this should probably happen
>> instead when we update hvm_info->{low,high}_mem_pgend.
>
>
> I also considered this point previously but I thought just right now we only
> update hvm_info->low/high_mem_pgend inside pci_setup(). But you can't
> guarantee this would be a sole place in the future. Instead,
> memory_map.map[] would always be copied into e820 when we build e820 table.
We can guarantee it, if nothing else by making sure that no new
changes are added which change the one but not the other.
But perhaps better would be to put a check in build_e820_map() to
BUG() if hvm_info and memory_map are out of sync.
On the other hand, looking at this now, I think that long-term we
should probably move to have *all* information about the memory layout
passed to hvmloader via the memory map, rather than via hvm_info.
That way we can also get rid of the "magic" knowledge that hvmloader
has about the memory layout (e.g., the VGA hole).
-George
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 16/16] tools: parse to enable new rdm policy parameters
2015-07-20 13:43 ` Ian Jackson
@ 2015-07-20 13:53 ` Chen, Tiejun
0 siblings, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread
From: Chen, Tiejun @ 2015-07-20 13:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ian Jackson; +Cc: Stefano Stabellini, Wei Liu, Ian Campbell, xen-devel
> For clarity:
>
> I am not acking this patch, primarily because I am not happy with the
> code in xlu_rdm_parse which is (a) the result of repeated
> clone-and-hack and (b) consists of ad-hoc string pointer fiddling.
Yes, I knew you mentioned this previously but I also remember our last
deal was something as follows:
">>> Really I would prefer that this parsing was done with a miniature flex
>>> parser, rather than ad-hoc pointer arithmetic and use of strtok.
>>
>> Sorry, could you show this explicitly?
>
> Something like what was done for disk devices. See libxlu_disk_l.l
> for an example. In this case your code would be a lot less
> complicated than what you see there.
>
> After the codefreeze I would probably have some time to write it for
Sounds yourself would do this so currently I just keep the original, right?
Thanks
Tiejun
> you. (I think that would be valuable because libxlu_disk_l.l is a
> very complicated example, and I want be able to point future
> submitters at something simpler.)
>
> Ian."
Then I didn't receive any response again so I thought yourself made this
promise.
Thanks
Tiejun
>
> If I had been able to review this patch earlier in the release cycle I
> would be explictly nacking this patch. It is true that maybe someone
> will have some time to clean this up later; but in practice it often
> turns out that they don't - which is why we usually try not to accept
> patches on the basis of promises to do further cleanup.
>
> However, I am late to this party. I first made this complaint in
> response to v7 on the 9th of July. Under the circumstances I am going
> to stand aside and neither ack nor nack this patch.
>
> The rules then say that the patch may be committed given that it has
> Wei's ack as a tools maintainer.
>
> Ian.
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 07/16] hvmloader/e820: construct guest e820 table
2015-07-20 13:50 ` George Dunlap
@ 2015-07-20 13:57 ` Chen, Tiejun
0 siblings, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread
From: Chen, Tiejun @ 2015-07-20 13:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: George Dunlap
Cc: Keir Fraser, Ian Campbell, Stefano Stabellini, Andrew Cooper,
Ian Jackson, xen-devel, Jan Beulich, Wei Liu
>>> Actually, now that you mention it -- this should probably happen
>>> instead when we update hvm_info->{low,high}_mem_pgend.
>>
>>
>> I also considered this point previously but I thought just right now we only
>> update hvm_info->low/high_mem_pgend inside pci_setup(). But you can't
>> guarantee this would be a sole place in the future. Instead,
>> memory_map.map[] would always be copied into e820 when we build e820 table.
>
> We can guarantee it, if nothing else by making sure that no new
> changes are added which change the one but not the other.
This means you have to syn this again once you change hvm_info so I
think this may cost a little bit.
Thanks
Tiejun
>
> But perhaps better would be to put a check in build_e820_map() to
> BUG() if hvm_info and memory_map are out of sync.
>
> On the other hand, looking at this now, I think that long-term we
> should probably move to have *all* information about the memory layout
> passed to hvmloader via the memory map, rather than via hvm_info.
> That way we can also get rid of the "magic" knowledge that hvmloader
> has about the memory layout (e.g., the VGA hole).
>
> -George
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 06/16] hvmloader/pci: Try to avoid placing BARs in RMRRs
2015-07-20 12:52 ` George Dunlap
@ 2015-07-20 14:06 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-20 14:10 ` George Dunlap
0 siblings, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread
From: Chen, Tiejun @ 2015-07-20 14:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: George Dunlap, Jan Beulich, George Dunlap; +Cc: xen-devel
>>> +/* Find the lowest RMRR higher than base. */
>>> +static int find_next_rmrr(uint32_t base)
>>> +{
>>> + unsigned int i;
>>> + int next_rmrr = -1;
>>> + uint64_t min_base = (1ull << 32);
>>> +
>>> + for ( i = 0; i < memory_map.nr_map ; i++ )
>>> + {
>>> + if ( memory_map.map[i].type == E820_RESERVED &&
>>> + memory_map.map[i].addr > base &&
>>> + memory_map.map[i].addr < min_base )
>>> + {
>>> + next_rmrr = i;
>>> + min_base = memory_map.map[i].addr;
>>> + }
>>> + }
>>> + return next_rmrr;
>>> +}
>>
>> Considering _both_ callers, I think the function should actually return
>> the lowest RMRR higher than or equal to base.
>
> You mean instead of strictly greater than the base.
>
>> Or wait - we actually
>> need to find the lowest RMRR the _end_ of which is higher than base.
>
> Yes, you're right: there's always a risk that pci_mem_start will *start*
> in the middle of a range. Looking for the next *end* is more robust.
>
Sorry this is not very clear to me so are you saying something like this?
for ( i = 0; i < memory_map.nr_map ; i++ )
{
end = memory_map.map[i].addr + memory_map.map[i].size;
if ( memory_map.map[i].type == E820_RESERVED &&
end > base &&
memory_map.map[i].addr < min_base )
{
next_rmrr = i;
min_base = memory_map.map[i].addr;
}
}
Thanks
Tiejun
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 06/16] hvmloader/pci: Try to avoid placing BARs in RMRRs
2015-07-20 14:06 ` Chen, Tiejun
@ 2015-07-20 14:10 ` George Dunlap
2015-07-20 14:16 ` Jan Beulich
0 siblings, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread
From: George Dunlap @ 2015-07-20 14:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chen, Tiejun, Jan Beulich, George Dunlap; +Cc: xen-devel
On 07/20/2015 03:06 PM, Chen, Tiejun wrote:
>>>> +/* Find the lowest RMRR higher than base. */
>>>> +static int find_next_rmrr(uint32_t base)
>>>> +{
>>>> + unsigned int i;
>>>> + int next_rmrr = -1;
>>>> + uint64_t min_base = (1ull << 32);
>>>> +
>>>> + for ( i = 0; i < memory_map.nr_map ; i++ )
>>>> + {
>>>> + if ( memory_map.map[i].type == E820_RESERVED &&
>>>> + memory_map.map[i].addr > base &&
>>>> + memory_map.map[i].addr < min_base )
>>>> + {
>>>> + next_rmrr = i;
>>>> + min_base = memory_map.map[i].addr;
>>>> + }
>>>> + }
>>>> + return next_rmrr;
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> Considering _both_ callers, I think the function should actually return
>>> the lowest RMRR higher than or equal to base.
>>
>> You mean instead of strictly greater than the base.
>>
>>> Or wait - we actually
>>> need to find the lowest RMRR the _end_ of which is higher than base.
>>
>> Yes, you're right: there's always a risk that pci_mem_start will *start*
>> in the middle of a range. Looking for the next *end* is more robust.
>>
>
> Sorry this is not very clear to me so are you saying something like this?
>
> for ( i = 0; i < memory_map.nr_map ; i++ )
> {
> end = memory_map.map[i].addr + memory_map.map[i].size;
>
> if ( memory_map.map[i].type == E820_RESERVED &&
> end > base &&
> memory_map.map[i].addr < min_base )
> {
> next_rmrr = i;
> min_base = memory_map.map[i].addr;
> }
> }
I think replace min_base with min_end:
if ( memory_map.map[i].type == E820_RESERVED &&
end > base &&
end < min_end )
{
next_rmrr = i;
min_end = end;
}
Hmm... although I suppose that doesn't catch the possibility of a memory
range crossing the 4G boundary.
-George
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 06/16] hvmloader/pci: Try to avoid placing BARs in RMRRs
2015-07-20 14:10 ` George Dunlap
@ 2015-07-20 14:16 ` Jan Beulich
2015-07-20 14:32 ` Chen, Tiejun
0 siblings, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread
From: Jan Beulich @ 2015-07-20 14:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: George Dunlap; +Cc: Tiejun Chen, George Dunlap, xen-devel
>>> On 20.07.15 at 16:10, <george.dunlap@citrix.com> wrote:
> Hmm... although I suppose that doesn't catch the possibility of a memory
> range crossing the 4G boundary.
I think we can safely ignore that - both real and virtual hardware have
special regions right below 4Gb, so neither RAM not RMRRs can be
reasonably placed there.
Jan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 06/16] hvmloader/pci: Try to avoid placing BARs in RMRRs
2015-07-20 14:16 ` Jan Beulich
@ 2015-07-20 14:32 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-20 15:00 ` Jan Beulich
0 siblings, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread
From: Chen, Tiejun @ 2015-07-20 14:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Beulich, George Dunlap; +Cc: George Dunlap, xen-devel
On 2015/7/20 22:16, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 20.07.15 at 16:10, <george.dunlap@citrix.com> wrote:
>> Hmm... although I suppose that doesn't catch the possibility of a memory
>> range crossing the 4G boundary.
>
> I think we can safely ignore that - both real and virtual hardware have
> special regions right below 4Gb, so neither RAM not RMRRs can be
> reasonably placed there.
>
Okay, I regenerate this patch online. And I just hope its good to be
acked here:
hvmloader/pci: Try to avoid placing BARs in RMRRs
Try to avoid placing PCI BARs over RMRRs:
- If mmio_hole_size is not specified, and the existing MMIO range has
RMRRs in it, and there is space to expand the hole in lowmem without
moving more memory, then make the MMIO hole as large as possible.
- When placing RMRRs, find the next RMRR higher than the current base
in the lowmem mmio hole. If it overlaps, skip ahead of it and find
the next one.
This certainly won't work in all cases, but it should work in a
significant number of cases. Additionally, users should be able to
work around problems by setting mmio_hole_size larger in the guest
config.
Signed-off-by: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
---
tools/firmware/hvmloader/pci.c | 65
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 65 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/pci.c b/tools/firmware/hvmloader/pci.c
index 5ff87a7..74fc080 100644
--- a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/pci.c
+++ b/tools/firmware/hvmloader/pci.c
@@ -38,6 +38,46 @@ uint64_t pci_hi_mem_start = 0, pci_hi_mem_end = 0;
enum virtual_vga virtual_vga = VGA_none;
unsigned long igd_opregion_pgbase = 0;
+/* Check if the specified range conflicts with any reserved device
memory. */
+static bool check_overlap_all(uint64_t start, uint64_t size)
+{
+ unsigned int i;
+
+ for ( i = 0; i < memory_map.nr_map; i++ )
+ {
+ if ( memory_map.map[i].type == E820_RESERVED &&
+ check_overlap(start, size,
+ memory_map.map[i].addr,
+ memory_map.map[i].size) )
+ return true;
+ }
+
+ return false;
+}
+
+/* Find the lowest RMRR higher than base. */
+static int find_next_rmrr(uint32_t base)
+{
+ unsigned int i;
+ int next_rmrr = -1;
+ uint64_t end, min_end = (1ull << 32);
+
+ for ( i = 0; i < memory_map.nr_map ; i++ )
+ {
+ end = memory_map.map[i].addr + memory_map.map[i].size;
+
+ if ( memory_map.map[i].type == E820_RESERVED &&
+ end > base &&
+ min_end < min_end )
+ {
+ next_rmrr = i;
+ min_end = end;
+ }
+ }
+
+ return next_rmrr;
+}
+
void pci_setup(void)
{
uint8_t is_64bar, using_64bar, bar64_relocate = 0;
@@ -46,6 +86,7 @@ void pci_setup(void)
uint32_t vga_devfn = 256;
uint16_t class, vendor_id, device_id;
unsigned int bar, pin, link, isa_irq;
+ int next_rmrr;
/* Resources assignable to PCI devices via BARs. */
struct resource {
@@ -299,6 +340,15 @@ void pci_setup(void)
|| (((pci_mem_start << 1) >> PAGE_SHIFT)
>= hvm_info->low_mem_pgend)) )
pci_mem_start <<= 1;
+
+ /*
+ * Try to accomodate RMRRs in our MMIO region on a best-effort
basis.
+ * If we have RMRRs in the range, then make pci_mem_start just
after
+ * hvm_info->low_mem_pgend.
+ */
+ if ( pci_mem_start > (hvm_info->low_mem_pgend << PAGE_SHIFT) &&
+ check_overlap_all(pci_mem_start, pci_mem_end-pci_mem_start) )
+ pci_mem_start = hvm_info->low_mem_pgend << PAGE_SHIFT;
}
if ( mmio_total > (pci_mem_end - pci_mem_start) )
@@ -352,6 +402,8 @@ void pci_setup(void)
io_resource.base = 0xc000;
io_resource.max = 0x10000;
+ next_rmrr = find_next_rmrr(pci_mem_start);
+
/* Assign iomem and ioport resources in descending order of size. */
for ( i = 0; i < nr_bars; i++ )
{
@@ -407,6 +459,19 @@ void pci_setup(void)
}
base = (resource->base + bar_sz - 1) & ~(uint64_t)(bar_sz - 1);
+
+ /* If we're using mem_resource, check for RMRR conflicts. */
+ while ( resource == &mem_resource &&
+ next_rmrr >= 0 &&
+ check_overlap(base, bar_sz,
+ memory_map.map[next_rmrr].addr,
+ memory_map.map[next_rmrr].size) )
+ {
+ base = memory_map.map[next_rmrr].addr +
memory_map.map[next_rmrr].size;
+ base = (base + bar_sz - 1) & ~(bar_sz - 1);
+ next_rmrr = find_next_rmrr(base);
+ }
+
bar_data |= (uint32_t)base;
bar_data_upper = (uint32_t)(base >> 32);
base += bar_sz;
--
1.9.1
Thanks
Tiejun
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 07/16] hvmloader/e820: construct guest e820 table
2015-07-20 11:56 ` Jan Beulich
@ 2015-07-20 14:35 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-20 15:03 ` Jan Beulich
0 siblings, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread
From: Chen, Tiejun @ 2015-07-20 14:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Beulich
Cc: Wei Liu, Ian Campbell, Stefano Stabellini, Andrew Cooper,
Ian Jackson, xen-devel, Keir Fraser
Looks just a little bit should be changed so I also paste this new
online to try winning your Acked here,
hvmloader/e820: construct guest e820 table
Now use the hypervisor-supplied memory map to build our final e820 table:
* Add regions for BIOS ranges and other special mappings not in the
hypervisor map
* Add in the hypervisor supplied regions
* Adjust the lowmem and highmem regions if we've had to relocate
memory (adding a highmem region if necessary)
* Sort all the ranges so that they appear in memory order.
CC: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
CC: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
CC: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
CC: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>
CC: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
CC: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
CC: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Reviewed-by: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
---
tools/firmware/hvmloader/e820.c | 109
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
1 file changed, 96 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/e820.c
b/tools/firmware/hvmloader/e820.c
index 7a414ab..a6cacdf 100644
--- a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/e820.c
+++ b/tools/firmware/hvmloader/e820.c
@@ -105,7 +105,11 @@ int build_e820_table(struct e820entry *e820,
unsigned int lowmem_reserved_base,
unsigned int bios_image_base)
{
- unsigned int nr = 0;
+ unsigned int nr = 0, i, j;
+ uint32_t low_mem_end = hvm_info->low_mem_pgend << PAGE_SHIFT;
+ uint32_t add_high_mem = 0;
+ uint64_t high_mem_end = (uint64_t)hvm_info->high_mem_pgend <<
PAGE_SHIFT;
+ uint64_t map_start, map_size, map_end;
if ( !lowmem_reserved_base )
lowmem_reserved_base = 0xA0000;
@@ -149,13 +153,6 @@ int build_e820_table(struct e820entry *e820,
e820[nr].type = E820_RESERVED;
nr++;
- /* Low RAM goes here. Reserve space for special pages. */
- BUG_ON((hvm_info->low_mem_pgend << PAGE_SHIFT) < (2u << 20));
- e820[nr].addr = 0x100000;
- e820[nr].size = (hvm_info->low_mem_pgend << PAGE_SHIFT) -
e820[nr].addr;
- e820[nr].type = E820_RAM;
- nr++;
-
/*
* Explicitly reserve space for special pages.
* This space starts at RESERVED_MEMBASE an extends to cover various
@@ -191,16 +188,102 @@ int build_e820_table(struct e820entry *e820,
nr++;
}
+ /* Low RAM goes here. Reserve space for special pages. */
+ BUG_ON(low_mem_end < (2u << 20));
- if ( hvm_info->high_mem_pgend )
+ /*
+ * Construct E820 table according to recorded memory map.
+ *
+ * The memory map created by toolstack may include,
+ *
+ * #1. Low memory region
+ *
+ * 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.
+ *
+ * #2. Reserved regions if they exist
+ *
+ * #3. High memory region if it exists
+ *
+ * Note we just have one low memory entry and one high mmeory entry if
+ * exists.
+ *
+ * But we may have relocated RAM to allocate sufficient MMIO previously
+ * so low_mem_pgend would be changed over there. And here memory_map[]
+ * records the original low/high memory, so if low_mem_end is less than
+ * the original we need to revise low/high memory range firstly.
+ */
+ for ( i = 0; i < memory_map.nr_map; i++ )
{
- e820[nr].addr = ((uint64_t)1 << 32);
- e820[nr].size =
- ((uint64_t)hvm_info->high_mem_pgend << PAGE_SHIFT) -
e820[nr].addr;
- e820[nr].type = E820_RAM;
+ map_start = memory_map.map[i].addr;
+ map_size = memory_map.map[i].size;
+ map_end = map_start + map_size;
+
+ /* If we need to adjust lowmem. */
+ if ( memory_map.map[i].type == E820_RAM &&
+ low_mem_end > map_start && low_mem_end < map_end )
+ {
+ add_high_mem = map_end - low_mem_end;
+ memory_map.map[i].size = low_mem_end - map_start;
+ break;
+ }
+ }
+
+ /* If we need to adjust highmem. */
+ if ( add_high_mem )
+ {
+ /* Modify the existing highmem region if it exists. */
+ for ( i = 0; i < memory_map.nr_map; i++ )
+ {
+ map_start = memory_map.map[i].addr;
+ map_size = memory_map.map[i].size;
+ map_end = map_start + map_size;
+
+ if ( memory_map.map[i].type == E820_RAM &&
+ map_start == ((uint64_t)1 << 32))
+ {
+ memory_map.map[i].size += add_high_mem;
+ break;
+ }
+ }
+
+ /* If there was no highmem region, just create one. */
+ if ( i == memory_map.nr_map )
+ {
+ memory_map.map[i].addr = ((uint64_t)1 << 32);
+ memory_map.map[i].size = add_high_mem;
+ memory_map.map[i].type = E820_RAM;
+ memory_map.nr_map++;
+ }
+
+ /* A sanity check if high memory is broken. */
+ BUG_ON( high_mem_end !=
+ memory_map.map[i].addr + memory_map.map[i].size);
+ }
+
+ /* Now fill e820. */
+ for ( i = 0; i < memory_map.nr_map; i++ )
+ {
+ e820[nr] = memory_map.map[i];
nr++;
}
+ /* Finally we need to sort all e820 entries. */
+ for ( j = 0; j < nr - 1; j++ )
+ {
+ for ( i = j + 1; i < nr; i++ )
+ {
+ if ( e820[j].addr > e820[i].addr )
+ {
+ struct e820entry tmp = e820[j];
+
+ e820[j] = e820[i];
+ e820[i] = tmp;
+ }
+ }
+ }
+
return nr;
}
--
1.9.1
Thanks
Tiejun
On 2015/7/20 19:56, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 20.07.15 at 08:16, <tiejun.chen@intel.com> wrote:
>> + /* If there was no highmem region, just create one. */
>> + if ( i == memory_map.nr_map )
>> + {
>> + memory_map.map[i].addr = ((uint64_t)1 << 32);
>> + memory_map.map[i].size = add_high_mem;
>> + memory_map.map[i].type = E820_RAM;
>
> Don't you need to increment memory_map.nr_map here?
>
>> + }
>> +
>> + /* A sanity check if high memory is broken. */
>> + BUG_ON( high_mem_end !=
>> + memory_map.map[i].addr + memory_map.map[i].size);
>> + }
>> +
>> + /* Now fulfill e820. */
>
> s/fulfill/fill/.
>
>> + /* Finally we need to sort all e820 entries. */
>> + for ( j = 0; j < nr-1; j++ )
>> + {
>> + for ( i = j+1; i < nr; i++ )
>
> Blanks around binary operators please.
>
> Jan
>
>
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM
2015-07-20 13:32 ` Ian Jackson
@ 2015-07-20 14:40 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-20 14:53 ` Ian Jackson
2015-07-21 6:38 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-21 10:41 ` Ian Jackson
2 siblings, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread
From: Chen, Tiejun @ 2015-07-20 14:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ian Jackson; +Cc: Stefano Stabellini, Wei Liu, Ian Campbell, xen-devel
Note I need more time to address others.
>> +int libxl__domain_device_construct_rdm(libxl__gc *gc,
>> + libxl_domain_config *d_config,
>> + uint64_t rdm_mem_boundary,
>> + struct xc_hvm_build_args *args)
>> +{
> ...
>> + /* Query all RDM entries in this platform */
>> + if (strategy == LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_STRATEGY_HOST) {
> ...
>> + } else {
>> + d_config->num_rdms = 0;
>> + }
>
> Does this not override the domain configuration's num_rdms ? I don't
We don't have the specific "num_rdms" parameter in .cfg so I don't
understand what you mean here.
Thanks
Tiejun
> think that is correct.
>
> If the domain configuration has rdms and num_rdms already set, then
> the strategy should presumably be ignored. (Passing the same domain
> configuration struct to libxl_domain_create_new, after destroying the
> domain, ought to work, even after the first call has modified it.)
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM
2015-07-20 14:40 ` Chen, Tiejun
@ 2015-07-20 14:53 ` Ian Jackson
2015-07-20 15:08 ` Chen, Tiejun
0 siblings, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread
From: Ian Jackson @ 2015-07-20 14:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chen, Tiejun; +Cc: Stefano Stabellini, Wei Liu, Ian Campbell, xen-devel
Chen, Tiejun writes ("Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM"):
> Note I need more time to address others.
Right. But thanks for coming back quickly with this question:
> >> +int libxl__domain_device_construct_rdm(libxl__gc *gc,
> >> + libxl_domain_config *d_config,
> >> + uint64_t rdm_mem_boundary,
> >> + struct xc_hvm_build_args *args)
> >> +{
> > ...
> >> + /* Query all RDM entries in this platform */
> >> + if (strategy == LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_STRATEGY_HOST) {
> > ...
> >> + } else {
> >> + d_config->num_rdms = 0;
> >> + }
> >
> > Does this not override the domain configuration's num_rdms ? I don't
>
> We don't have the specific "num_rdms" parameter in .cfg so I don't
> understand what you mean here.
The domain configuration specified to libxl might contain some rdms.
Then num_rdms in the incoming config would be nonzero.
So I think there are two problems here:
1. If that were the case you would leak the application's rdms array.
2. Anyway, if the caller specifies such an array you should use it.
(Fixing this would avoid (1) in any case.)
Ian.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 06/16] hvmloader/pci: Try to avoid placing BARs in RMRRs
2015-07-20 14:32 ` Chen, Tiejun
@ 2015-07-20 15:00 ` Jan Beulich
2015-07-21 0:53 ` Chen, Tiejun
0 siblings, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread
From: Jan Beulich @ 2015-07-20 15:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tiejun Chen; +Cc: George Dunlap, xen-devel
>>> On 20.07.15 at 16:32, <tiejun.chen@intel.com> wrote:
> On 2015/7/20 22:16, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 20.07.15 at 16:10, <george.dunlap@citrix.com> wrote:
>>> Hmm... although I suppose that doesn't catch the possibility of a memory
>>> range crossing the 4G boundary.
>>
>> I think we can safely ignore that - both real and virtual hardware have
>> special regions right below 4Gb, so neither RAM not RMRRs can be
>> reasonably placed there.
>>
>
> Okay, I regenerate this patch online. And I just hope its good to be
> acked here:
Provided it also works,
Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 07/16] hvmloader/e820: construct guest e820 table
2015-07-20 14:35 ` Chen, Tiejun
@ 2015-07-20 15:03 ` Jan Beulich
0 siblings, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread
From: Jan Beulich @ 2015-07-20 15:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tiejun Chen
Cc: Wei Liu, Ian Campbell, Stefano Stabellini, Andrew Cooper,
Ian Jackson, xen-devel, Keir Fraser
>>> On 20.07.15 at 16:35, <tiejun.chen@intel.com> wrote:
> Looks just a little bit should be changed so I also paste this new
> online to try winning your Acked here,
Just like the other one, provided it also works,
Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM
2015-07-20 14:53 ` Ian Jackson
@ 2015-07-20 15:08 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-20 15:24 ` Ian Jackson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread
From: Chen, Tiejun @ 2015-07-20 15:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ian Jackson; +Cc: Stefano Stabellini, Wei Liu, Ian Campbell, xen-devel
>>>> +int libxl__domain_device_construct_rdm(libxl__gc *gc,
>>>> + libxl_domain_config *d_config,
>>>> + uint64_t rdm_mem_boundary,
>>>> + struct xc_hvm_build_args *args)
>>>> +{
>>> ...
>>>> + /* Query all RDM entries in this platform */
>>>> + if (strategy == LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_STRATEGY_HOST) {
>>> ...
>>>> + } else {
>>>> + d_config->num_rdms = 0;
>>>> + }
>>>
>>> Does this not override the domain configuration's num_rdms ? I don't
>>
>> We don't have the specific "num_rdms" parameter in .cfg so I don't
>> understand what you mean here.
>
> The domain configuration specified to libxl might contain some rdms.
> Then num_rdms in the incoming config would be nonzero.
We never set d_config->num_rdms/d_config->rdms before we goes inside
libxl__domain_device_construct_rdm(). And actually
libxl__domain_device_construct_rdm is only one place to set
d_config->num_rdms/d_config->rdms.
I guess this line make you or other guys confused so lets delete this
line directly.
And if you still worry about something, I can add assert() at the
beginning of this function like this,
assert(!d_config->num_rdms && !d_config->rdms).
Thanks
Tiejun
>
> So I think there are two problems here:
>
> 1. If that were the case you would leak the application's rdms array.
>
> 2. Anyway, if the caller specifies such an array you should use it.
> (Fixing this would avoid (1) in any case.)
>
> Ian.
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM
2015-07-20 15:08 ` Chen, Tiejun
@ 2015-07-20 15:24 ` Ian Jackson
2015-07-20 15:38 ` Ian Campbell
2015-07-21 6:45 ` Chen, Tiejun
0 siblings, 2 replies; 74+ messages in thread
From: Ian Jackson @ 2015-07-20 15:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chen, Tiejun; +Cc: Stefano Stabellini, Wei Liu, Ian Campbell, xen-devel
Chen, Tiejun writes ("Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and
avoid conflicts with RDM"):
> [Ian Jackson:]
> > The domain configuration specified to libxl might contain some rdms.
> > Then num_rdms in the incoming config would be nonzero.
>
> We never set d_config->num_rdms/d_config->rdms before we goes inside
> libxl__domain_device_construct_rdm(). And actually
> libxl__domain_device_construct_rdm is only one place to set
> d_config->num_rdms/d_config->rdms.
But d_config is a libxl_domain_config which is supplied by libxl's
caller. It might contain some rdms.
> I guess this line make you or other guys confused so lets delete this
> line directly.
I don't think I am very confused.
> And if you still worry about something, I can add assert() at the
> beginning of this function like this,
>
> assert(!d_config->num_rdms && !d_config->rdms).
If you are sure that this assertion is correct, then that would be
proper.
But as I say above, I don't think it is.
Ian.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM
2015-07-20 15:24 ` Ian Jackson
@ 2015-07-20 15:38 ` Ian Campbell
2015-07-21 6:44 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-21 6:45 ` Chen, Tiejun
1 sibling, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread
From: Ian Campbell @ 2015-07-20 15:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ian Jackson; +Cc: Chen, Tiejun, Stefano Stabellini, Wei Liu, xen-devel
On Mon, 2015-07-20 at 16:24 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Chen, Tiejun writes ("Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and
> avoid conflicts with RDM"):
> > [Ian Jackson:]
> > > The domain configuration specified to libxl might contain some rdms.
> > > Then num_rdms in the incoming config would be nonzero.
> >
> > We never set d_config->num_rdms/d_config->rdms before we goes inside
> > libxl__domain_device_construct_rdm(). And actually
> > libxl__domain_device_construct_rdm is only one place to set
> > d_config->num_rdms/d_config->rdms.
>
> But d_config is a libxl_domain_config which is supplied by libxl's
> caller. It might contain some rdms.
>
> > I guess this line make you or other guys confused so lets delete this
> > line directly.
>
> I don't think I am very confused.
I think the confusion here is that the d_config->rdms array (which
num_rdms is the length of) is in the public API (because it is in
libxl_types.idl) but is apparently only being used in this series as an
internal state for the domain build process (i.e. xl doesn't ever add
anything to the array rdms).
Tiejun, is that an accurate summary?
If the field is in the public API then the possibility of something
being passed in their must be considered now, even if this particular
series adds no such calls, since we cannot prevent 3rd party users of
libxl adding such configuration.
Is the possibility of the toolstack (i.e. the caller of libxl) supplying
an array of rdm regions seems to be being left aside for future work or
it not intended to ever support that?
Ian.
>
> > And if you still worry about something, I can add assert() at the
> > beginning of this function like this,
> >
> > assert(!d_config->num_rdms && !d_config->rdms).
>
> If you are sure that this assertion is correct, then that would be
> proper.
>
> But as I say above, I don't think it is.
>
> Ian.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 06/16] hvmloader/pci: Try to avoid placing BARs in RMRRs
2015-07-20 15:00 ` Jan Beulich
@ 2015-07-21 0:53 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-21 6:18 ` Jan Beulich
2015-07-21 9:42 ` George Dunlap
0 siblings, 2 replies; 74+ messages in thread
From: Chen, Tiejun @ 2015-07-21 0:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Beulich; +Cc: George Dunlap, xen-devel
>> Okay, I regenerate this patch online. And I just hope its good to be
>> acked here:
>
> Provided it also works,
> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
>
Why is this marked as Acked-by this time? The same question is raised to
another hvmloader patch as well.
This really makes me confused since you're the key maintainer associated
to this, and I remember you also gave me Acked-by to the first hvmloader
patch. I know this solution is always argued, so does this mean you
still don't think this is good to go in the tree in your perspective, so
you want to leave this Acked-by to other maintainers, right?
And what about patch #7, hvmloader/e820: construct guest e820 table, is
this also not fine to you?
Thanks
Tiejun
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 06/16] hvmloader/pci: Try to avoid placing BARs in RMRRs
2015-07-21 0:53 ` Chen, Tiejun
@ 2015-07-21 6:18 ` Jan Beulich
2015-07-21 9:42 ` George Dunlap
1 sibling, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread
From: Jan Beulich @ 2015-07-21 6:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tiejun Chen; +Cc: George Dunlap, xen-devel
>>> On 21.07.15 at 02:53, <tiejun.chen@intel.com> wrote:
>> > Okay, I regenerate this patch online. And I just hope its good to be
>>> acked here:
>>
>> Provided it also works,
>> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
>
> Why is this marked as Acked-by this time? The same question is raised to
> another hvmloader patch as well.
>
> This really makes me confused since you're the key maintainer associated
> to this, and I remember you also gave me Acked-by to the first hvmloader
> patch. I know this solution is always argued, so does this mean you
> still don't think this is good to go in the tree in your perspective, so
> you want to leave this Acked-by to other maintainers, right?
Keeping in mind that others (and other projects) may consider this
differently, at least on the hypervisor side we've been mostly
treating (or trying to treat) Reviewed-by as a superset of Acked-by.
Jan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM
2015-07-20 13:32 ` Ian Jackson
2015-07-20 14:40 ` Chen, Tiejun
@ 2015-07-21 6:38 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-21 10:48 ` Ian Jackson
2015-07-21 10:41 ` Ian Jackson
2 siblings, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread
From: Chen, Tiejun @ 2015-07-21 6:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ian Jackson; +Cc: Stefano Stabellini, Wei Liu, Ian Campbell, xen-devel
I hope the following can address all comments below:
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_create.c b/tools/libxl/libxl_create.c
index 2f8e590..a4bd2a1 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_create.c
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_create.c
@@ -407,7 +407,7 @@ int libxl__domain_build(libxl__gc *gc,
switch (info->type) {
case LIBXL_DOMAIN_TYPE_HVM:
- ret = libxl__build_hvm(gc, domid, info, state);
+ ret = libxl__build_hvm(gc, domid, d_config, state);
if (ret)
goto out;
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_dm.c b/tools/libxl/libxl_dm.c
index 634b8d2..ba852fe 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_dm.c
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_dm.c
@@ -92,6 +92,276 @@ const char *libxl__domain_device_model(libxl__gc *gc,
return dm;
}
+static int
+libxl__xc_device_get_rdm(libxl__gc *gc,
+ uint32_t flag,
+ uint16_t seg,
+ uint8_t bus,
+ uint8_t devfn,
+ unsigned int *nr_entries,
+ struct xen_reserved_device_memory **xrdm)
+{
+ int rc = 0, r;
+
+ /*
+ * We really can't presume how many entries we can get in advance.
+ */
+ *nr_entries = 0;
+ r = xc_reserved_device_memory_map(CTX->xch, flag, seg, bus, devfn,
+ NULL, nr_entries);
+ assert(r <= 0);
+ /* "0" means we have no any rdm entry. */
+ if (!r) goto out;
+
+ if (errno != ENOBUFS) {
+ rc = ERROR_FAIL;
+ goto out;
+ }
+
+ GCNEW_ARRAY(*xrdm, *nr_entries);
+ r = xc_reserved_device_memory_map(CTX->xch, flag, seg, bus, devfn,
+ *xrdm, nr_entries);
+ if (r)
+ rc = ERROR_FAIL;
+
+ out:
+ if (rc) {
+ *nr_entries = 0;
+ *xrdm = NULL;
+ LOG(ERROR, "Could not get reserved device memory maps.\n");
+ }
+ return rc;
+}
+
+/*
+ * Check whether there exists rdm hole in the specified memory range.
+ * Returns true if exists, else returns false.
+ */
+static bool overlaps_rdm(uint64_t start, uint64_t memsize,
+ uint64_t rdm_start, uint64_t rdm_size)
+{
+ return (start + memsize > rdm_start) && (start < rdm_start + rdm_size);
+}
+
+static void
+add_rdm_entry(libxl__gc *gc, libxl_domain_config *d_config,
+ uint64_t rdm_start, uint64_t rdm_size, int rdm_policy)
+{
+ assert(d_config->num_rdms);
+
+ d_config->rdms = libxl__realloc(NOGC, d_config->rdms,
+ d_config->num_rdms * sizeof(libxl_device_rdm));
+
+ d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms - 1].start = rdm_start;
+ d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms - 1].size = rdm_size;
+ d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms - 1].policy = rdm_policy;
+}
+
+/*
+ * Check reported RDM regions and handle potential gfn conflicts according
+ * to user preferred policy.
+ *
+ * RDM can reside in address space beyond 4G theoretically, but we never
+ * see this in real world. So in order to avoid breaking highmem layout
+ * we don't solve highmem conflict. Note this means highmem rmrr could
+ * still be supported if no conflict.
+ *
+ * But in the case of lowmem, RDM probably scatter the whole RAM space.
+ * Especially multiple RDM entries would worsen this to lead a complicated
+ * memory layout. And then its hard to extend hvm_info_table{} to work
+ * hvmloader out. So here we're trying to figure out a simple solution to
+ * avoid breaking existing layout. So when a conflict occurs,
+ *
+ * #1. Above a predefined boundary (default 2G)
+ * - Move lowmem_end below reserved region to solve conflict;
+ *
+ * #2. Below a predefined boundary (default 2G)
+ * - Check strict/relaxed policy.
+ * "strict" policy leads to fail libxl.
+ * "relaxed" policy issue a warning message and also mask this entry
+ * INVALID to indicate we shouldn't expose this entry to hvmloader.
+ * Note when both policies are specified on a given region, the per-device
+ * policy should override the global policy.
+ */
+int libxl__domain_device_construct_rdm(libxl__gc *gc,
+ libxl_domain_config *d_config,
+ uint64_t rdm_mem_boundary,
+ struct xc_hvm_build_args *args)
+{
+ int i, j, conflict, rc;
+ struct xen_reserved_device_memory *xrdm = NULL;
+ uint32_t strategy = d_config->b_info.u.hvm.rdm.strategy;
+ uint16_t seg;
+ uint8_t bus, devfn;
+ uint64_t rdm_start, rdm_size;
+ uint64_t highmem_end = args->highmem_end ? args->highmem_end :
(1ull<<32);
+
+ /* Might not expose rdm. */
+ if (strategy == LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_STRATEGY_IGNORE &&
+ !d_config->num_pcidevs)
+ return 0;
+
+ /* Query all RDM entries in this platform */
+ if (strategy == LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_STRATEGY_HOST) {
+ unsigned int nr_entries;
+
+ /* Collect all rdm info if exist. */
+ rc = libxl__xc_device_get_rdm(gc, PCI_DEV_RDM_ALL,
+ 0, 0, 0, &nr_entries, &xrdm);
+ if (rc)
+ goto out;
+ if (!nr_entries)
+ return 0;
+
+ assert(xrdm);
+
+ for (i = 0; i < nr_entries; i++)
+ {
+ d_config->num_rdms++;
+ add_rdm_entry(gc, d_config,
+ pfn_to_paddr(xrdm[i].start_pfn),
+ pfn_to_paddr(xrdm[i].nr_pages),
+ d_config->b_info.u.hvm.rdm.policy);
+ }
+ }
+
+ /* Query RDM entries per-device */
+ for (i = 0; i < d_config->num_pcidevs; i++) {
+ unsigned int nr_entries;
+ bool new = true;
+
+ seg = d_config->pcidevs[i].domain;
+ bus = d_config->pcidevs[i].bus;
+ devfn = PCI_DEVFN(d_config->pcidevs[i].dev,
+ d_config->pcidevs[i].func);
+ nr_entries = 0;
+ rc = libxl__xc_device_get_rdm(gc, ~PCI_DEV_RDM_ALL,
+ seg, bus, devfn, &nr_entries, &xrdm);
+ if (rc)
+ goto out;
+ /* No RDM to associated with this device. */
+ if (!nr_entries)
+ continue;
+
+ assert(xrdm);
+
+ /*
+ * Need to check whether this entry is already saved in the array.
+ * This could come from two cases:
+ *
+ * - user may configure to get all RDMs in this platform, which
+ * is already queried before this point
+ * - or two assigned devices may share one RDM entry
+ *
+ * Different policies may be configured on the same RDM due to
+ * above two cases. But we don't allow to assign such a group
+ * devies right now so it doesn't come true in our case.
+ */
+ for (j = 0; j < d_config->num_rdms; j++) {
+ if (d_config->rdms[j].start == pfn_to_paddr(xrdm[0].start_pfn))
+ {
+ /*
+ * So the per-device policy always override the global
+ * policy in this case.
+ */
+ d_config->rdms[j].policy = d_config->pcidevs[i].rdm_policy;
+ new = false;
+ break;
+ }
+ }
+
+ if (new) {
+ d_config->num_rdms++;
+ add_rdm_entry(gc, d_config,
+ pfn_to_paddr(xrdm[0].start_pfn),
+ pfn_to_paddr(xrdm[0].nr_pages),
+ d_config->pcidevs[i].rdm_policy);
+ }
+ }
+
+ /*
+ * Next step is to check and avoid potential conflict between RDM
+ * entries and guest RAM. To avoid intrusive impact to existing
+ * memory layout {lowmem, mmio, highmem} which is passed around
+ * various function blocks, below conflicts are not handled which
+ * are rare and handling them would lead to a more scattered
+ * layout:
+ * - RDM in highmem area (>4G)
+ * - RDM lower than a defined memory boundary (e.g. 2G)
+ * Otherwise for conflicts between boundary and 4G, we'll simply
+ * move lowmem end below reserved region to solve conflict.
+ *
+ * If a conflict is detected on a given RDM entry, an error will
+ * be returned if 'strict' policy is specified. Instead, if
+ * 'relaxed' policy specified, this conflict is treated just as a
+ * warning, but we mark this RDM entry as INVALID to indicate that
+ * this entry shouldn't be exposed to hvmloader.
+ *
+ * Firstly we should check the case of rdm < 4G because we may
+ * need to expand highmem_end.
+ */
+ for (i = 0; i < d_config->num_rdms; i++) {
+ rdm_start = d_config->rdms[i].start;
+ rdm_size = d_config->rdms[i].size;
+ conflict = overlaps_rdm(0, args->lowmem_end, rdm_start, rdm_size);
+
+ if (!conflict)
+ continue;
+
+ /* Just check if RDM > our memory boundary. */
+ if (rdm_start > rdm_mem_boundary) {
+ /*
+ * We will move downwards lowmem_end so we have to expand
+ * highmem_end.
+ */
+ highmem_end += (args->lowmem_end - rdm_start);
+ /* Now move downwards lowmem_end. */
+ args->lowmem_end = rdm_start;
+ }
+ }
+
+ /* Sync highmem_end. */
+ args->highmem_end = highmem_end;
+
+ /*
+ * Finally we can take same policy to check lowmem(< 2G) and
+ * highmem adjusted above.
+ */
+ for (i = 0; i < d_config->num_rdms; i++) {
+ rdm_start = d_config->rdms[i].start;
+ rdm_size = d_config->rdms[i].size;
+ /* Does this entry conflict with lowmem? */
+ conflict = overlaps_rdm(0, args->lowmem_end,
+ rdm_start, rdm_size);
+ /* Does this entry conflict with highmem? */
+ conflict |= overlaps_rdm((1ULL<<32),
+ args->highmem_end - (1ULL<<32),
+ rdm_start, rdm_size);
+
+ if (!conflict)
+ continue;
+
+ if (d_config->rdms[i].policy == LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_POLICY_STRICT) {
+ LOG(ERROR, "RDM conflict at 0x%lx.\n",
d_config->rdms[i].start);
+ goto out;
+ } else {
+ LOG(WARN, "Ignoring RDM conflict at 0x%lx.\n",
+ d_config->rdms[i].start);
+
+ /*
+ * Then mask this INVALID to indicate we shouldn't expose this
+ * to hvmloader.
+ */
+ d_config->rdms[i].policy = LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_POLICY_INVALID;
+ }
+ }
+
+ return 0;
+
+ out:
+ return ERROR_FAIL;
+}
+
const libxl_vnc_info *libxl__dm_vnc(const libxl_domain_config
*guest_config)
{
const libxl_vnc_info *vnc = NULL;
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_dom.c b/tools/libxl/libxl_dom.c
index 4cb247a..7e39047 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_dom.c
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_dom.c
@@ -921,13 +921,20 @@ out:
}
int libxl__build_hvm(libxl__gc *gc, uint32_t domid,
- libxl_domain_build_info *info,
+ libxl_domain_config *d_config,
libxl__domain_build_state *state)
{
libxl_ctx *ctx = libxl__gc_owner(gc);
struct xc_hvm_build_args args = {};
int ret, rc = ERROR_FAIL;
uint64_t mmio_start, lowmem_end, highmem_end;
+ libxl_domain_build_info *const info = &d_config->b_info;
+ /*
+ * Currently we fix this as 2G to guarantee how to handle
+ * our rdm policy. But we'll provide a parameter to set
+ * this dynamically.
+ */
+ uint64_t rdm_mem_boundary = 0x80000000;
memset(&args, 0, sizeof(struct xc_hvm_build_args));
/* The params from the configuration file are in Mb, which are then
@@ -965,6 +972,14 @@ int libxl__build_hvm(libxl__gc *gc, uint32_t domid,
args.highmem_end = highmem_end;
args.mmio_start = mmio_start;
+ rc = libxl__domain_device_construct_rdm(gc, d_config,
+ rdm_mem_boundary,
+ &args);
+ if (rc) {
+ LOG(ERROR, "checking reserved device memory failed");
+ goto out;
+ }
+
if (info->num_vnuma_nodes != 0) {
int i;
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_internal.h b/tools/libxl/libxl_internal.h
index 69fdad8..5e4e771 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_internal.h
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_internal.h
@@ -144,6 +144,9 @@
#endif
/* all of these macros preserve errno (saving and restoring) */
+/* Convert pfn to physical address space. */
+#define pfn_to_paddr(x) ((uint64_t)(x) << XC_PAGE_SHIFT)
+
/* logging */
_hidden void libxl__logv(libxl_ctx *ctx, xentoollog_level msglevel,
int errnoval,
const char *file /* may be 0 */, int line /* ignored if
!file */,
@@ -1076,7 +1079,7 @@ _hidden int libxl__build_post(libxl__gc *gc,
uint32_t domid,
_hidden int libxl__build_pv(libxl__gc *gc, uint32_t domid,
libxl_domain_build_info *info, libxl__domain_build_state
*state);
_hidden int libxl__build_hvm(libxl__gc *gc, uint32_t domid,
- libxl_domain_build_info *info,
+ libxl_domain_config *d_config,
libxl__domain_build_state *state);
_hidden int libxl__qemu_traditional_cmd(libxl__gc *gc, uint32_t domid,
@@ -1584,6 +1587,15 @@ _hidden int libxl__need_xenpv_qemu(libxl__gc *gc,
int nr_channels, libxl_device_channel *channels);
/*
+ * This function will fix reserved device memory conflict
+ * according to user's configuration.
+ */
+_hidden int libxl__domain_device_construct_rdm(libxl__gc *gc,
+ libxl_domain_config *d_config,
+ uint64_t rdm_mem_guard,
+ struct xc_hvm_build_args *args);
+
+/*
* This function will cause the whole libxl process to hang
* if the device model does not respond. It is deprecated.
*
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl b/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl
index db9f75a..157fa59 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl
@@ -586,6 +586,12 @@ libxl_device_pci = Struct("device_pci", [
("rdm_policy", libxl_rdm_reserve_policy),
])
+libxl_device_rdm = Struct("device_rdm", [
+ ("start", uint64),
+ ("size", uint64),
+ ("policy", libxl_rdm_reserve_policy),
+ ])
+
libxl_device_dtdev = Struct("device_dtdev", [
("path", string),
])
@@ -616,6 +622,7 @@ libxl_domain_config = Struct("domain_config", [
("disks", Array(libxl_device_disk, "num_disks")),
("nics", Array(libxl_device_nic, "num_nics")),
("pcidevs", Array(libxl_device_pci, "num_pcidevs")),
+ ("rdms", Array(libxl_device_rdm, "num_rdms")),
("dtdevs", Array(libxl_device_dtdev, "num_dtdevs")),
("vfbs", Array(libxl_device_vfb, "num_vfbs")),
("vkbs", Array(libxl_device_vkb, "num_vkbs")),
--
1.9.1
Thanks
Tiejun
On 2015/7/20 21:32, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Tiejun Chen writes ("[v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM"):
>> While building a VM, HVM domain builder provides struct hvm_info_table{}
>> to help hvmloader. Currently it includes two fields to construct guest
>> e820 table by hvmloader, low_mem_pgend and high_mem_pgend. So we should
>> check them to fix any conflict with RDM.
> ...
>
> Thanks. I think this patch is nearly there.
>
>> +static int
>> +libxl__xc_device_get_rdm(libxl__gc *gc,
> ...
>> + *xrdm = libxl__malloc(gc,
>> + *nr_entries * sizeof(xen_reserved_device_memory_t));
>
> Sorry for not spotting this before, but this should use GCNEW_ARRAY.
>
>> +}
>> +
>> +#define pfn_to_paddr(x) ((uint64_t)x << XC_PAGE_SHIFT)
>> +static void
>
> Missing blank line after the #define - although I think this #define
> could profitably be moved to libxl_internal.h. If you do keep it here
> please move it further up the file, to at least before any function
> or struct definition.
>
>
> Also the #define is missing safety ( ) around x.
>
>> +set_rdm_entries(libxl__gc *gc, libxl_domain_config *d_config,
>> + uint64_t rdm_start, uint64_t rdm_size, int rdm_policy,
>> + unsigned int nr_entries)
>> +{
>> + assert(nr_entries);
>> +
>> + d_config->num_rdms = nr_entries;
>> + d_config->rdms = libxl__realloc(NOGC, d_config->rdms,
>> + d_config->num_rdms * sizeof(libxl_device_rdm));
>> +
>> + d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms - 1].start = rdm_start;
>> + d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms - 1].size = rdm_size;
>> + d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms - 1].policy = rdm_policy;
>> +}
>
> Thanks for breaking this out. I think though that the division of
> labour between this function and the call site is confusing.
>
> Can I suggest a function
>
> void add_rdm_entry(libxl__gc *gc, libxl_domain_config *d_config,
> uint64_t rdm_start, uint64_t rdm_size, int rdm_policy)
>
> which assumes that d_config->num_rdms is set correctly, and increments
> it ?
>
> (Please put the increment at the end so that the assignments are to
> ->rdms[d_config->num_rdms], or perhaps make a convenience alias.)
>
>
>> +int libxl__domain_device_construct_rdm(libxl__gc *gc,
>> + libxl_domain_config *d_config,
>> + uint64_t rdm_mem_boundary,
>> + struct xc_hvm_build_args *args)
>> +{
> ...
>> + /* Query all RDM entries in this platform */
>> + if (strategy == LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_STRATEGY_HOST) {
> ...
>> + } else {
>> + d_config->num_rdms = 0;
>> + }
>
> Does this not override the domain configuration's num_rdms ? I don't
> think that is correct.
>
> If the domain configuration has rdms and num_rdms already set, then
> the strategy should presumably be ignored. (Passing the same domain
> configuration struct to libxl_domain_create_new, after destroying the
> domain, ought to work, even after the first call has modified it.)
>
>
> Can you please also wrap at least the already-word-wrapped comments to
> 70 (or maybe 75) columns ? What you have lookes like this when I
> quote it for review:
>
>> + * Next step is to check and avoid potential conflict between RDM entri\
> es
>> + * and guest RAM. To avoid intrusive impact to existing memory layout
>> + * {lowmem, mmio, highmem} which is passed around various function bloc\
> ks,
>> + * below conflicts are not handled which are rare and handling them wou\
> ld
>
>
> Thanks,
> Ian.
>
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM
2015-07-20 15:38 ` Ian Campbell
@ 2015-07-21 6:44 ` Chen, Tiejun
0 siblings, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread
From: Chen, Tiejun @ 2015-07-21 6:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ian Campbell, Ian Jackson; +Cc: Stefano Stabellini, Wei Liu, xen-devel
> I think the confusion here is that the d_config->rdms array (which
> num_rdms is the length of) is in the public API (because it is in
> libxl_types.idl) but is apparently only being used in this series as an
> internal state for the domain build process (i.e. xl doesn't ever add
> anything to the array rdms).
>
> Tiejun, is that an accurate summary?
Yes.
>
> If the field is in the public API then the possibility of something
> being passed in their must be considered now, even if this particular
> series adds no such calls, since we cannot prevent 3rd party users of
> libxl adding such configuration.
>
> Is the possibility of the toolstack (i.e. the caller of libxl) supplying
> an array of rdm regions seems to be being left aside for future work or
> it not intended to ever support that?
Its very possible so you're right.
Thanks
Tiejun
>
> Ian.
>
>>
>>> And if you still worry about something, I can add assert() at the
>>> beginning of this function like this,
>>>
>>> assert(!d_config->num_rdms && !d_config->rdms).
>>
>> If you are sure that this assertion is correct, then that would be
>> proper.
>>
>> But as I say above, I don't think it is.
>>
>> Ian.
>
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM
2015-07-20 15:24 ` Ian Jackson
2015-07-20 15:38 ` Ian Campbell
@ 2015-07-21 6:45 ` Chen, Tiejun
1 sibling, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread
From: Chen, Tiejun @ 2015-07-21 6:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ian Jackson; +Cc: Stefano Stabellini, Wei Liu, Ian Campbell, xen-devel
> But d_config is a libxl_domain_config which is supplied by libxl's
> caller. It might contain some rdms.
>
>> I guess this line make you or other guys confused so lets delete this
>> line directly.
>
> I don't think I am very confused.
>
>> And if you still worry about something, I can add assert() at the
>> beginning of this function like this,
>>
>> assert(!d_config->num_rdms && !d_config->rdms).
>
> If you are sure that this assertion is correct, then that would be
> proper.
>
> But as I say above, I don't think it is.
>
Based on Campbell' explanation I think you guys are raising a reasonable
concern. We shouldn't clear that over there arbitrarily.
Thanks
Tiejun
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 06/16] hvmloader/pci: Try to avoid placing BARs in RMRRs
2015-07-21 0:53 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-21 6:18 ` Jan Beulich
@ 2015-07-21 9:42 ` George Dunlap
1 sibling, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread
From: George Dunlap @ 2015-07-21 9:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chen, Tiejun, Jan Beulich; +Cc: George Dunlap, xen-devel
On 07/21/2015 01:53 AM, Chen, Tiejun wrote:
>>> Okay, I regenerate this patch online. And I just hope its good to be
>>> acked here:
>>
>> Provided it also works,
>> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
>>
>
> Why is this marked as Acked-by this time? The same question is raised to
> another hvmloader patch as well.
>
> This really makes me confused since you're the key maintainer associated
> to this, and I remember you also gave me Acked-by to the first hvmloader
> patch. I know this solution is always argued, so does this mean you
> still don't think this is good to go in the tree in your perspective, so
> you want to leave this Acked-by to other maintainers, right?
>
> And what about patch #7, hvmloader/e820: construct guest e820 table, is
> this also not fine to you?
Acked-by means basically, "I have no objections to this going in." For
a patch to be committed it needs at least one maintainer to Ack it, and
(in general) no one else who objects. (A maintainer can override
someone's objection.) But it doesn't mean that Jan has done a thorough
review, or even that he's read it (he may Ack it just based on other
people's Reviewed-by's).
Reviewed-by means that he *has* done a thorough technical review, and he
thinks it's ready to go in. In particular, Reviewed-by means "While
there may be things that could be improved with this submission, I
believe that it is, at this time, (1) a worthwhile modification, and (2)
free of known issues which would argue against its inclusion." [1]
So Reviewed-by is stronger than Acked-by.
-George
[1] Section 13, https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
-George
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM
2015-07-20 13:32 ` Ian Jackson
2015-07-20 14:40 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-21 6:38 ` Chen, Tiejun
@ 2015-07-21 10:41 ` Ian Jackson
2015-07-21 11:04 ` Chen, Tiejun
2 siblings, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread
From: Ian Jackson @ 2015-07-21 10:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tiejun Chen, xen-devel, Stefano Stabellini, Ian Campbell, Wei Liu
I wrote:
> If the domain configuration has rdms and num_rdms already set, then
> the strategy should presumably be ignored. (Passing the same domain
> configuration struct to libxl_domain_create_new, after destroying the
> domain, ought to work, even after the first call has modified it.)
But even your latest patch adds the host rdm's (from the strategy
algorithm) to the array, unconditionally.
I think you need to think more clearly about what happens when the
caller *both* supplies some rdms, and sets strategy=host.
Certainly if this happens and the set of rdms supplied is the same as
that which would be generated by the strategy, the set should not be
duplicated.
Ian.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM
2015-07-21 6:38 ` Chen, Tiejun
@ 2015-07-21 10:48 ` Ian Jackson
2015-07-21 11:12 ` Chen, Tiejun
0 siblings, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread
From: Ian Jackson @ 2015-07-21 10:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chen, Tiejun; +Cc: Stefano Stabellini, Wei Liu, Ian Campbell, xen-devel
Chen, Tiejun writes ("Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM"):
> I hope the following can address all comments below:
You now write this:
> +static void
> +add_rdm_entry(libxl__gc *gc, libxl_domain_config *d_config,
> + uint64_t rdm_start, uint64_t rdm_size, int rdm_policy)
> +{
> + assert(d_config->num_rdms);
> +
> + d_config->rdms = libxl__realloc(NOGC, d_config->rdms,
> + d_config->num_rdms * sizeof(libxl_device_rdm));
> +
> + d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms - 1].start = rdm_start;
> + d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms - 1].size = rdm_size;
> + d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms - 1].policy = rdm_policy;
> +}
But, I wrote:
Can I suggest a function
void add_rdm_entry(libxl__gc *gc, libxl_domain_config *d_config,
uint64_t rdm_start, uint64_t rdm_size, int rdm_policy)
which assumes that d_config->num_rdms is set correctly, and increments
it ?
(Please put the increment at the end so that the assignments are to
->rdms[d_config->num_rdms], or perhaps make a convenience alias.)
Did you not notice that both call sites for add_rdm_entry are preceded
by the increment ? As I wrote earlier:
Finding multiple occurrences of very similar code is usually a sign
that refactoring is needed.
See also my other mail about the handling of existing rdms with
strategy=host.
Thanks,
Ian.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM
2015-07-21 10:41 ` Ian Jackson
@ 2015-07-21 11:04 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-21 11:11 ` Ian Jackson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread
From: Chen, Tiejun @ 2015-07-21 11:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ian Jackson, xen-devel, Stefano Stabellini, Ian Campbell, Wei Liu
On 2015/7/21 18:41, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I wrote:
>> If the domain configuration has rdms and num_rdms already set, then
>> the strategy should presumably be ignored. (Passing the same domain
>> configuration struct to libxl_domain_create_new, after destroying the
>> domain, ought to work, even after the first call has modified it.)
>
> But even your latest patch adds the host rdm's (from the strategy
> algorithm) to the array, unconditionally.
>
> I think you need to think more clearly about what happens when the
> caller *both* supplies some rdms, and sets strategy=host.
>
> Certainly if this happens and the set of rdms supplied is the same as
> that which would be generated by the strategy, the set should not be
> duplicated.
>
I can understand we shouldn't duplicate any existing entries. But based
on our current design, I think we don't allow this happened. And I think
this is more like to support sort of group devices that means two or
more devices share same RMRR entry. But currently we don't support group
devices as we did in patch #15.
So in this perspective, what's out last policy is not clear. And
actually as we discussed previously with other guys, this is our next
step after this series. So we won't extend this assumption and
especially, I also can confirm this is only one place to construct RDM now.
I would add this check at the beginning of this function:
assert(!d_config->num_rdms && !d_config->rdms).
Thanks
Tiejun
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM
2015-07-21 11:04 ` Chen, Tiejun
@ 2015-07-21 11:11 ` Ian Jackson
2015-07-21 11:23 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-21 12:04 ` Chen, Tiejun
0 siblings, 2 replies; 74+ messages in thread
From: Ian Jackson @ 2015-07-21 11:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chen, Tiejun; +Cc: Stefano Stabellini, Wei Liu, Ian Campbell, xen-devel
Chen, Tiejun writes ("Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM"):
> I would add this check at the beginning of this function:
>
> assert(!d_config->num_rdms && !d_config->rdms).
As Ian Campbell and I have explained, that is not OK.
The caller may choose to pass both some rdms and strategy=host.
The most obvious case is something like the following code
libxl_domain_config cfg;
cfg.stuff = blah;
cfg.rdm.strategy = HOST;
libxl_domain_create_new(&cfg, &domid);
libxl_domain_destroy(domid);
libxl_domain_create_new(&cfg, &domid);
which must work (and the second domain should have identical
configuration to the first).
Ian.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM
2015-07-21 10:48 ` Ian Jackson
@ 2015-07-21 11:12 ` Chen, Tiejun
0 siblings, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread
From: Chen, Tiejun @ 2015-07-21 11:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ian Jackson; +Cc: Stefano Stabellini, Wei Liu, Ian Campbell, xen-devel
>> +static void
>> +add_rdm_entry(libxl__gc *gc, libxl_domain_config *d_config,
>> + uint64_t rdm_start, uint64_t rdm_size, int rdm_policy)
>> +{
>> + assert(d_config->num_rdms);
>> +
>> + d_config->rdms = libxl__realloc(NOGC, d_config->rdms,
>> + d_config->num_rdms * sizeof(libxl_device_rdm));
>> +
>> + d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms - 1].start = rdm_start;
>> + d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms - 1].size = rdm_size;
>> + d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms - 1].policy = rdm_policy;
>> +}
>
> But, I wrote:
>
> Can I suggest a function
>
> void add_rdm_entry(libxl__gc *gc, libxl_domain_config *d_config,
> uint64_t rdm_start, uint64_t rdm_size, int rdm_policy)
>
> which assumes that d_config->num_rdms is set correctly, and increments
> it ?
>
> (Please put the increment at the end so that the assignments are to
> ->rdms[d_config->num_rdms], or perhaps make a convenience alias.)
>
> Did you not notice that both call sites for add_rdm_entry are preceded
> by the increment ? As I wrote earlier:
>
> Finding multiple occurrences of very similar code is usually a sign
> that refactoring is needed.
Sorry I should make this better.
So I just need to move increment into the callee like this?
static void
add_rdm_entry(libxl__gc *gc, libxl_domain_config *d_config,
uint64_t rdm_start, uint64_t rdm_size, int rdm_policy)
{
d_config->num_rdms++;
d_config->rdms = libxl__realloc(NOGC, d_config->rdms,
d_config->num_rdms * sizeof(libxl_device_rdm));
d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms - 1].start = rdm_start;
d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms - 1].size = rdm_size;
d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms - 1].policy = rdm_policy;
}
>
>
> See also my other mail about the handling of existing rdms with
> strategy=host.
>
I also replied there.
Thanks
Tiejun
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM
2015-07-21 11:11 ` Ian Jackson
@ 2015-07-21 11:23 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-21 11:27 ` Ian Jackson
2015-07-21 12:04 ` Chen, Tiejun
1 sibling, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread
From: Chen, Tiejun @ 2015-07-21 11:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ian Jackson; +Cc: Stefano Stabellini, Wei Liu, Ian Campbell, xen-devel
On 2015/7/21 19:11, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Chen, Tiejun writes ("Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM"):
>> I would add this check at the beginning of this function:
>>
>> assert(!d_config->num_rdms && !d_config->rdms).
>
> As Ian Campbell and I have explained, that is not OK.
>
> The caller may choose to pass both some rdms and strategy=host.
>
> The most obvious case is something like the following code
>
> libxl_domain_config cfg;
> cfg.stuff = blah;
> cfg.rdm.strategy = HOST;
>
> libxl_domain_create_new(&cfg, &domid);
> libxl_domain_destroy(domid);
I'm not sure about this procedure, so do you mean this doesn't free
d_config->num_rdms/d_config->rdms?
If not, I should double check this duplication so what about a return in
the case of duplicating one entry?
static void
add_rdm_entry(libxl__gc *gc, libxl_domain_config *d_config,
uint64_t rdm_start, uint64_t rdm_size, int rdm_policy)
{
if (d_config->rdms)
{
unsigned int i;
for (i = 0; i < d_config->num_rdms; i++)
{
if (d_config->rdms[i].start == rdm_start)
return;
}
}
d_config->num_rdms++;
d_config->rdms = libxl__realloc(NOGC, d_config->rdms,
d_config->num_rdms * sizeof(libxl_device_rdm));
d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms - 1].start = rdm_start;
d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms - 1].size = rdm_size;
d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms - 1].policy = rdm_policy;
}
Thanks
Tiejun
> libxl_domain_create_new(&cfg, &domid);
>
> which must work (and the second domain should have identical
> configuration to the first).
>
> Ian.
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM
2015-07-21 11:23 ` Chen, Tiejun
@ 2015-07-21 11:27 ` Ian Jackson
2015-07-21 11:45 ` Chen, Tiejun
0 siblings, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread
From: Ian Jackson @ 2015-07-21 11:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chen, Tiejun; +Cc: Stefano Stabellini, Wei Liu, Ian Campbell, xen-devel
Chen, Tiejun writes ("Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM"):
> On 2015/7/21 19:11, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > The most obvious case is something like the following code
> >
> > libxl_domain_config cfg;
> > cfg.stuff = blah;
> > cfg.rdm.strategy = HOST;
> >
> > libxl_domain_create_new(&cfg, &domid);
> > libxl_domain_destroy(domid);
>
> I'm not sure about this procedure, so do you mean this doesn't free
> d_config->num_rdms/d_config->rdms?
The domain destroy would not change cfg at all.
> If not, I should double check this duplication so what about a return in
> the case of duplicating one entry?
What I am looking for is a *decision* about what the right behaviour
is, backed up by a *rationale*.
The most obvious answer to me would be that if an rdms array is
specified, the strategy should be ignored. That is how the automatic
numa placement API works.
But another answer would be to take the union of the specified
regions. That would be more complicated, because the union would have
to be computed.
> if (d_config->rdms[i].start == rdm_start)
> return;
That doesn't, of course, compute the union.
Ian.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM
2015-07-21 11:27 ` Ian Jackson
@ 2015-07-21 11:45 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-21 12:33 ` Ian Jackson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread
From: Chen, Tiejun @ 2015-07-21 11:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ian Jackson; +Cc: Stefano Stabellini, Wei Liu, Ian Campbell, xen-devel
> The domain destroy would not change cfg at all.
Okay.
>
>> If not, I should double check this duplication so what about a return in
>> the case of duplicating one entry?
>
> What I am looking for is a *decision* about what the right behaviour
> is, backed up by a *rationale*.
>
> The most obvious answer to me would be that if an rdms array is
> specified, the strategy should be ignored. That is how the automatic
> numa placement API works.
I'm not familiar with this.
Do you mean this?
if (d_config->num_rdms)
strategy = LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_STRATEGY_IGNORE;
But except this global strategy, we also have per-device setting so
maybe something like this?
if (d_config->num_rdms)
return 0;
>
> But another answer would be to take the union of the specified
> regions. That would be more complicated, because the union would have
> to be computed.
>
>> if (d_config->rdms[i].start == rdm_start)
>> return;
>
> That doesn't, of course, compute the union.
>
Sorry I don't understand what the "take the union of the specified
regions" is here.
Thanks
Tiejun
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM
2015-07-21 11:11 ` Ian Jackson
2015-07-21 11:23 ` Chen, Tiejun
@ 2015-07-21 12:04 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-21 12:34 ` Ian Jackson
1 sibling, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread
From: Chen, Tiejun @ 2015-07-21 12:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ian Jackson; +Cc: Stefano Stabellini, Wei Liu, Ian Campbell, xen-devel
On 2015/7/21 19:11, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Chen, Tiejun writes ("Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM"):
>> I would add this check at the beginning of this function:
>>
>> assert(!d_config->num_rdms && !d_config->rdms).
>
> As Ian Campbell and I have explained, that is not OK.
>
> The caller may choose to pass both some rdms and strategy=host.
If you're talking to create the domain twice I think this should be
reasonable,
if (d_config->num_rdms) return 0;
Because RDMs are always associated to the platform so we should keep the
same array. I mean same configuration shouldn't change this point.
Thanks
Tiejun
>
> The most obvious case is something like the following code
>
> libxl_domain_config cfg;
> cfg.stuff = blah;
> cfg.rdm.strategy = HOST;
>
> libxl_domain_create_new(&cfg, &domid);
> libxl_domain_destroy(domid);
> libxl_domain_create_new(&cfg, &domid);
>
> which must work (and the second domain should have identical
> configuration to the first).
>
> Ian.
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM
2015-07-21 11:45 ` Chen, Tiejun
@ 2015-07-21 12:33 ` Ian Jackson
2015-07-21 13:29 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-21 13:41 ` Chen, Tiejun
0 siblings, 2 replies; 74+ messages in thread
From: Ian Jackson @ 2015-07-21 12:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chen, Tiejun; +Cc: Stefano Stabellini, Wei Liu, Ian Campbell, xen-devel
Chen, Tiejun writes ("Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM"):
> [Ian Jackson:]
> > The most obvious answer to me would be that if an rdms array is
> > specified, the strategy should be ignored. That is how the automatic
> > numa placement API works.
>
> I'm not familiar with this.
>
> Do you mean this?
>
> if (d_config->num_rdms)
> strategy = LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_STRATEGY_IGNORE;
>
> But except this global strategy, we also have per-device setting so
> maybe something like this?
>
> if (d_config->num_rdms)
> return 0;
This latter was the kind of approach I had in mind. I think that will
do for 4.6.
> > But another answer would be to take the union of the specified
> > regions. That would be more complicated, because the union would have
> > to be computed.
> >
> >> if (d_config->rdms[i].start == rdm_start)
> >> return;
> >
> > That doesn't, of course, compute the union.
>
> Sorry I don't understand what the "take the union of the specified
> regions" is here.
A "region" is a subset of the address space. I meant the set union:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_%28set_theory%29
That is, an address would be reserved if it was reserved in any of the
rdm regions implied by the config.
The explicitly specified regions might overlap with the computed ones,
without being identical. Computing the union would not be entirely
trivial.
Ian.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM
2015-07-21 12:04 ` Chen, Tiejun
@ 2015-07-21 12:34 ` Ian Jackson
0 siblings, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread
From: Ian Jackson @ 2015-07-21 12:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chen, Tiejun; +Cc: Stefano Stabellini, Wei Liu, Ian Campbell, xen-devel
Chen, Tiejun writes ("Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM"):
> If you're talking to create the domain twice I think this should be
> reasonable,
Right.
> if (d_config->num_rdms) return 0;
Yes.
> Because RDMs are always associated to the platform so we should keep the
> same array. I mean same configuration shouldn't change this point.
Yes.
Thanks,
Ian.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM
2015-07-21 12:33 ` Ian Jackson
@ 2015-07-21 13:29 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-21 15:09 ` Ian Jackson
2015-07-21 13:41 ` Chen, Tiejun
1 sibling, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread
From: Chen, Tiejun @ 2015-07-21 13:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ian Jackson; +Cc: Stefano Stabellini, Wei Liu, Ian Campbell, xen-devel
On 2015/7/21 20:33, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Chen, Tiejun writes ("Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM"):
>> [Ian Jackson:]
>>> The most obvious answer to me would be that if an rdms array is
>>> specified, the strategy should be ignored. That is how the automatic
>>> numa placement API works.
>>
>> I'm not familiar with this.
>>
>> Do you mean this?
>>
>> if (d_config->num_rdms)
>> strategy = LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_STRATEGY_IGNORE;
>>
>> But except this global strategy, we also have per-device setting so
>> maybe something like this?
>>
>> if (d_config->num_rdms)
>> return 0;
>
> This latter was the kind of approach I had in mind. I think that will
> do for 4.6.
>
Thanks for your guideline on this patch, and also I realize lots of
things need to be improved. So I'm going to make a TODO list publically
after this feature freeze.
Now just for this patch, please take a final review (I just hope so.)
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_create.c b/tools/libxl/libxl_create.c
index 2f8e590..a4bd2a1 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_create.c
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_create.c
@@ -407,7 +407,7 @@ int libxl__domain_build(libxl__gc *gc,
switch (info->type) {
case LIBXL_DOMAIN_TYPE_HVM:
- ret = libxl__build_hvm(gc, domid, info, state);
+ ret = libxl__build_hvm(gc, domid, d_config, state);
if (ret)
goto out;
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_dm.c b/tools/libxl/libxl_dm.c
index 634b8d2..3afa735 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_dm.c
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_dm.c
@@ -92,6 +92,280 @@ const char *libxl__domain_device_model(libxl__gc *gc,
return dm;
}
+static int
+libxl__xc_device_get_rdm(libxl__gc *gc,
+ uint32_t flag,
+ uint16_t seg,
+ uint8_t bus,
+ uint8_t devfn,
+ unsigned int *nr_entries,
+ struct xen_reserved_device_memory **xrdm)
+{
+ int rc = 0, r;
+
+ /*
+ * We really can't presume how many entries we can get in advance.
+ */
+ *nr_entries = 0;
+ r = xc_reserved_device_memory_map(CTX->xch, flag, seg, bus, devfn,
+ NULL, nr_entries);
+ assert(r <= 0);
+ /* "0" means we have no any rdm entry. */
+ if (!r) goto out;
+
+ if (errno != ENOBUFS) {
+ rc = ERROR_FAIL;
+ goto out;
+ }
+
+ GCNEW_ARRAY(*xrdm, *nr_entries);
+ r = xc_reserved_device_memory_map(CTX->xch, flag, seg, bus, devfn,
+ *xrdm, nr_entries);
+ if (r)
+ rc = ERROR_FAIL;
+
+ out:
+ if (rc) {
+ *nr_entries = 0;
+ *xrdm = NULL;
+ LOG(ERROR, "Could not get reserved device memory maps.\n");
+ }
+ return rc;
+}
+
+/*
+ * Check whether there exists rdm hole in the specified memory range.
+ * Returns true if exists, else returns false.
+ */
+static bool overlaps_rdm(uint64_t start, uint64_t memsize,
+ uint64_t rdm_start, uint64_t rdm_size)
+{
+ return (start + memsize > rdm_start) && (start < rdm_start + rdm_size);
+}
+
+static void
+add_rdm_entry(libxl__gc *gc, libxl_domain_config *d_config,
+ uint64_t rdm_start, uint64_t rdm_size, int rdm_policy)
+{
+ d_config->num_rdms++;
+ d_config->rdms = libxl__realloc(NOGC, d_config->rdms,
+ d_config->num_rdms * sizeof(libxl_device_rdm));
+
+ d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms - 1].start = rdm_start;
+ d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms - 1].size = rdm_size;
+ d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms - 1].policy = rdm_policy;
+}
+
+/*
+ * Check reported RDM regions and handle potential gfn conflicts according
+ * to user preferred policy.
+ *
+ * RDM can reside in address space beyond 4G theoretically, but we never
+ * see this in real world. So in order to avoid breaking highmem layout
+ * we don't solve highmem conflict. Note this means highmem rmrr could
+ * still be supported if no conflict.
+ *
+ * But in the case of lowmem, RDM probably scatter the whole RAM space.
+ * Especially multiple RDM entries would worsen this to lead a complicated
+ * memory layout. And then its hard to extend hvm_info_table{} to work
+ * hvmloader out. So here we're trying to figure out a simple solution to
+ * avoid breaking existing layout. So when a conflict occurs,
+ *
+ * #1. Above a predefined boundary (default 2G)
+ * - Move lowmem_end below reserved region to solve conflict;
+ *
+ * #2. Below a predefined boundary (default 2G)
+ * - Check strict/relaxed policy.
+ * "strict" policy leads to fail libxl.
+ * "relaxed" policy issue a warning message and also mask this entry
+ * INVALID to indicate we shouldn't expose this entry to hvmloader.
+ * Note when both policies are specified on a given region, the per-device
+ * policy should override the global policy.
+ */
+int libxl__domain_device_construct_rdm(libxl__gc *gc,
+ libxl_domain_config *d_config,
+ uint64_t rdm_mem_boundary,
+ struct xc_hvm_build_args *args)
+{
+ int i, j, conflict, rc;
+ struct xen_reserved_device_memory *xrdm = NULL;
+ uint32_t strategy = d_config->b_info.u.hvm.rdm.strategy;
+ uint16_t seg;
+ uint8_t bus, devfn;
+ uint64_t rdm_start, rdm_size;
+ uint64_t highmem_end = args->highmem_end ? args->highmem_end :
(1ull<<32);
+
+ /*
+ * We just want to construct RDM once since RDM is specific to the
+ * given platform, so this shouldn't change again.
+ */
+ if (d_config->num_rdms)
+ return 0;
+
+ /* Might not expose rdm. */
+ if (strategy == LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_STRATEGY_IGNORE &&
+ !d_config->num_pcidevs)
+ return 0;
+
+ /* Query all RDM entries in this platform */
+ if (strategy == LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_STRATEGY_HOST) {
+ unsigned int nr_entries;
+
+ /* Collect all rdm info if exist. */
+ rc = libxl__xc_device_get_rdm(gc, PCI_DEV_RDM_ALL,
+ 0, 0, 0, &nr_entries, &xrdm);
+ if (rc)
+ goto out;
+ if (!nr_entries)
+ return 0;
+
+ assert(xrdm);
+
+ for (i = 0; i < nr_entries; i++)
+ {
+ add_rdm_entry(gc, d_config,
+ pfn_to_paddr(xrdm[i].start_pfn),
+ pfn_to_paddr(xrdm[i].nr_pages),
+ d_config->b_info.u.hvm.rdm.policy);
+ }
+ }
+
+ /* Query RDM entries per-device */
+ for (i = 0; i < d_config->num_pcidevs; i++) {
+ unsigned int nr_entries;
+ bool new = true;
+
+ seg = d_config->pcidevs[i].domain;
+ bus = d_config->pcidevs[i].bus;
+ devfn = PCI_DEVFN(d_config->pcidevs[i].dev,
+ d_config->pcidevs[i].func);
+ nr_entries = 0;
+ rc = libxl__xc_device_get_rdm(gc, ~PCI_DEV_RDM_ALL,
+ seg, bus, devfn, &nr_entries, &xrdm);
+ if (rc)
+ goto out;
+ /* No RDM to associated with this device. */
+ if (!nr_entries)
+ continue;
+
+ assert(xrdm);
+
+ /*
+ * Need to check whether this entry is already saved in the array.
+ * This could come from two cases:
+ *
+ * - user may configure to get all RDMs in this platform, which
+ * is already queried before this point
+ * - or two assigned devices may share one RDM entry
+ *
+ * Different policies may be configured on the same RDM due to
+ * above two cases. But we don't allow to assign such a group
+ * devies right now so it doesn't come true in our case.
+ */
+ for (j = 0; j < d_config->num_rdms; j++) {
+ if (d_config->rdms[j].start == pfn_to_paddr(xrdm[0].start_pfn))
+ {
+ /*
+ * So the per-device policy always override the global
+ * policy in this case.
+ */
+ d_config->rdms[j].policy = d_config->pcidevs[i].rdm_policy;
+ new = false;
+ break;
+ }
+ }
+
+ if (new) {
+ add_rdm_entry(gc, d_config,
+ pfn_to_paddr(xrdm[0].start_pfn),
+ pfn_to_paddr(xrdm[0].nr_pages),
+ d_config->pcidevs[i].rdm_policy);
+ }
+ }
+
+ /*
+ * Next step is to check and avoid potential conflict between RDM
+ * entries and guest RAM. To avoid intrusive impact to existing
+ * memory layout {lowmem, mmio, highmem} which is passed around
+ * various function blocks, below conflicts are not handled which
+ * are rare and handling them would lead to a more scattered
+ * layout:
+ * - RDM in highmem area (>4G)
+ * - RDM lower than a defined memory boundary (e.g. 2G)
+ * Otherwise for conflicts between boundary and 4G, we'll simply
+ * move lowmem end below reserved region to solve conflict.
+ *
+ * If a conflict is detected on a given RDM entry, an error will
+ * be returned if 'strict' policy is specified. Instead, if
+ * 'relaxed' policy specified, this conflict is treated just as a
+ * warning, but we mark this RDM entry as INVALID to indicate that
+ * this entry shouldn't be exposed to hvmloader.
+ *
+ * Firstly we should check the case of rdm < 4G because we may
+ * need to expand highmem_end.
+ */
+ for (i = 0; i < d_config->num_rdms; i++) {
+ rdm_start = d_config->rdms[i].start;
+ rdm_size = d_config->rdms[i].size;
+ conflict = overlaps_rdm(0, args->lowmem_end, rdm_start, rdm_size);
+
+ if (!conflict)
+ continue;
+
+ /* Just check if RDM > our memory boundary. */
+ if (rdm_start > rdm_mem_boundary) {
+ /*
+ * We will move downwards lowmem_end so we have to expand
+ * highmem_end.
+ */
+ highmem_end += (args->lowmem_end - rdm_start);
+ /* Now move downwards lowmem_end. */
+ args->lowmem_end = rdm_start;
+ }
+ }
+
+ /* Sync highmem_end. */
+ args->highmem_end = highmem_end;
+
+ /*
+ * Finally we can take same policy to check lowmem(< 2G) and
+ * highmem adjusted above.
+ */
+ for (i = 0; i < d_config->num_rdms; i++) {
+ rdm_start = d_config->rdms[i].start;
+ rdm_size = d_config->rdms[i].size;
+ /* Does this entry conflict with lowmem? */
+ conflict = overlaps_rdm(0, args->lowmem_end,
+ rdm_start, rdm_size);
+ /* Does this entry conflict with highmem? */
+ conflict |= overlaps_rdm((1ULL<<32),
+ args->highmem_end - (1ULL<<32),
+ rdm_start, rdm_size);
+
+ if (!conflict)
+ continue;
+
+ if (d_config->rdms[i].policy == LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_POLICY_STRICT) {
+ LOG(ERROR, "RDM conflict at 0x%lx.\n",
d_config->rdms[i].start);
+ goto out;
+ } else {
+ LOG(WARN, "Ignoring RDM conflict at 0x%lx.\n",
+ d_config->rdms[i].start);
+
+ /*
+ * Then mask this INVALID to indicate we shouldn't expose this
+ * to hvmloader.
+ */
+ d_config->rdms[i].policy = LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_POLICY_INVALID;
+ }
+ }
+
+ return 0;
+
+ out:
+ return ERROR_FAIL;
+}
+
const libxl_vnc_info *libxl__dm_vnc(const libxl_domain_config
*guest_config)
{
const libxl_vnc_info *vnc = NULL;
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_dom.c b/tools/libxl/libxl_dom.c
index 4cb247a..7e39047 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_dom.c
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_dom.c
@@ -921,13 +921,20 @@ out:
}
int libxl__build_hvm(libxl__gc *gc, uint32_t domid,
- libxl_domain_build_info *info,
+ libxl_domain_config *d_config,
libxl__domain_build_state *state)
{
libxl_ctx *ctx = libxl__gc_owner(gc);
struct xc_hvm_build_args args = {};
int ret, rc = ERROR_FAIL;
uint64_t mmio_start, lowmem_end, highmem_end;
+ libxl_domain_build_info *const info = &d_config->b_info;
+ /*
+ * Currently we fix this as 2G to guarantee how to handle
+ * our rdm policy. But we'll provide a parameter to set
+ * this dynamically.
+ */
+ uint64_t rdm_mem_boundary = 0x80000000;
memset(&args, 0, sizeof(struct xc_hvm_build_args));
/* The params from the configuration file are in Mb, which are then
@@ -965,6 +972,14 @@ int libxl__build_hvm(libxl__gc *gc, uint32_t domid,
args.highmem_end = highmem_end;
args.mmio_start = mmio_start;
+ rc = libxl__domain_device_construct_rdm(gc, d_config,
+ rdm_mem_boundary,
+ &args);
+ if (rc) {
+ LOG(ERROR, "checking reserved device memory failed");
+ goto out;
+ }
+
if (info->num_vnuma_nodes != 0) {
int i;
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_internal.h b/tools/libxl/libxl_internal.h
index 69fdad8..5e4e771 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_internal.h
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_internal.h
@@ -144,6 +144,9 @@
#endif
/* all of these macros preserve errno (saving and restoring) */
+/* Convert pfn to physical address space. */
+#define pfn_to_paddr(x) ((uint64_t)(x) << XC_PAGE_SHIFT)
+
/* logging */
_hidden void libxl__logv(libxl_ctx *ctx, xentoollog_level msglevel,
int errnoval,
const char *file /* may be 0 */, int line /* ignored if
!file */,
@@ -1076,7 +1079,7 @@ _hidden int libxl__build_post(libxl__gc *gc,
uint32_t domid,
_hidden int libxl__build_pv(libxl__gc *gc, uint32_t domid,
libxl_domain_build_info *info, libxl__domain_build_state
*state);
_hidden int libxl__build_hvm(libxl__gc *gc, uint32_t domid,
- libxl_domain_build_info *info,
+ libxl_domain_config *d_config,
libxl__domain_build_state *state);
_hidden int libxl__qemu_traditional_cmd(libxl__gc *gc, uint32_t domid,
@@ -1584,6 +1587,15 @@ _hidden int libxl__need_xenpv_qemu(libxl__gc *gc,
int nr_channels, libxl_device_channel *channels);
/*
+ * This function will fix reserved device memory conflict
+ * according to user's configuration.
+ */
+_hidden int libxl__domain_device_construct_rdm(libxl__gc *gc,
+ libxl_domain_config *d_config,
+ uint64_t rdm_mem_guard,
+ struct xc_hvm_build_args *args);
+
+/*
* This function will cause the whole libxl process to hang
* if the device model does not respond. It is deprecated.
*
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl b/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl
index db9f75a..157fa59 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl
@@ -586,6 +586,12 @@ libxl_device_pci = Struct("device_pci", [
("rdm_policy", libxl_rdm_reserve_policy),
])
+libxl_device_rdm = Struct("device_rdm", [
+ ("start", uint64),
+ ("size", uint64),
+ ("policy", libxl_rdm_reserve_policy),
+ ])
+
libxl_device_dtdev = Struct("device_dtdev", [
("path", string),
])
@@ -616,6 +622,7 @@ libxl_domain_config = Struct("domain_config", [
("disks", Array(libxl_device_disk, "num_disks")),
("nics", Array(libxl_device_nic, "num_nics")),
("pcidevs", Array(libxl_device_pci, "num_pcidevs")),
+ ("rdms", Array(libxl_device_rdm, "num_rdms")),
("dtdevs", Array(libxl_device_dtdev, "num_dtdevs")),
("vfbs", Array(libxl_device_vfb, "num_vfbs")),
("vkbs", Array(libxl_device_vkb, "num_vkbs")),
--
1.9.1
Thanks
Tiejun
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM
2015-07-21 12:33 ` Ian Jackson
2015-07-21 13:29 ` Chen, Tiejun
@ 2015-07-21 13:41 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-21 15:10 ` Ian Jackson
1 sibling, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread
From: Chen, Tiejun @ 2015-07-21 13:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ian Jackson; +Cc: Stefano Stabellini, Wei Liu, Ian Campbell, xen-devel
>>> But another answer would be to take the union of the specified
>>> regions. That would be more complicated, because the union would have
>>> to be computed.
>>>
>>>> if (d_config->rdms[i].start == rdm_start)
>>>> return;
>>>
>>> That doesn't, of course, compute the union.
>>
>> Sorry I don't understand what the "take the union of the specified
>> regions" is here.
>
> A "region" is a subset of the address space. I meant the set union:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_%28set_theory%29
>
> That is, an address would be reserved if it was reserved in any of the
> rdm regions implied by the config.
Are you saying this point?
"The union of two sets A and B is the set of elements which are in A, in
B, or in both A and B."
>
> The explicitly specified regions might overlap with the computed ones,
> without being identical. Computing the union would not be entirely
> trivial.
>
Just to your example,
libxl_domain_config cfg;
cfg.stuff = blah;
cfg.rdm.strategy = HOST;
libxl_domain_create_new(&cfg, &domid);
libxl_domain_destroy(domid);
Here looks you mean d_config->rdms would be changed, right? Currently
this shouldn't be allowed. But I think we need to further discussion
make this case clear after feature freeze since we didn't have this kind
of assumption in our previous design.
libxl_domain_create_new(&cfg, &domid);
Thanks
Tiejun
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM
2015-07-21 13:29 ` Chen, Tiejun
@ 2015-07-21 15:09 ` Ian Jackson
2015-07-21 15:42 ` Chen, Tiejun
0 siblings, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread
From: Ian Jackson @ 2015-07-21 15:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chen, Tiejun; +Cc: Stefano Stabellini, Wei Liu, Ian Campbell, xen-devel
Chen, Tiejun writes ("Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM"):
> +static void
> +add_rdm_entry(libxl__gc *gc, libxl_domain_config *d_config,
> + uint64_t rdm_start, uint64_t rdm_size, int rdm_policy)
> +{
> + d_config->num_rdms++;
> + d_config->rdms = libxl__realloc(NOGC, d_config->rdms,
> + d_config->num_rdms * sizeof(libxl_device_rdm));
> +
> + d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms - 1].start = rdm_start;
> + d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms - 1].size = rdm_size;
> + d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms - 1].policy = rdm_policy;
> +}
But, I wrote:
Can I suggest a function
void add_rdm_entry(libxl__gc *gc, libxl_domain_config *d_config,
uint64_t rdm_start, uint64_t rdm_size, int rdm_policy)
which assumes that d_config->num_rdms is set correctly, and increments
it ?
(Please put the increment at the end so that the assignments are to
->rdms[d_config->num_rdms], or perhaps make a convenience alias.)
Note the last paragraph.
This is now the third time I have posted that text. It is the fifth
request or clarification I have had to make about this very small
area. I have to say that I'm finding this rather frustrating.
Ian.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM
2015-07-21 13:41 ` Chen, Tiejun
@ 2015-07-21 15:10 ` Ian Jackson
2015-07-21 15:22 ` Chen, Tiejun
0 siblings, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread
From: Ian Jackson @ 2015-07-21 15:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chen, Tiejun; +Cc: Stefano Stabellini, Wei Liu, Ian Campbell, xen-devel
Chen, Tiejun writes ("Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM"):
> [Ian Jackson:]
> > That is, an address would be reserved if it was reserved in any of the
> > rdm regions implied by the config.
>
> Are you saying this point?
>
> "The union of two sets A and B is the set of elements which are in A, in
> B, or in both A and B."
Yes.
> > The explicitly specified regions might overlap with the computed ones,
> > without being identical. Computing the union would not be entirely
> > trivial.
>
> Just to your example,
>
> libxl_domain_config cfg;
> cfg.stuff = blah;
> cfg.rdm.strategy = HOST;
>
> libxl_domain_create_new(&cfg, &domid);
> libxl_domain_destroy(domid);
>
> Here looks you mean d_config->rdms would be changed, right? Currently
> this shouldn't be allowed. But I think we need to further discussion
> make this case clear after feature freeze since we didn't have this kind
> of assumption in our previous design.
>
> libxl_domain_create_new(&cfg, &domid);
This response of yours does not lead me to think you have understood
what I am saying, but I agree that this can be dealt with later (if
indeed it needs to be dealt with at all).
Ian.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM
2015-07-21 15:10 ` Ian Jackson
@ 2015-07-21 15:22 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-21 15:31 ` Ian Jackson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread
From: Chen, Tiejun @ 2015-07-21 15:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ian Jackson; +Cc: Stefano Stabellini, Wei Liu, Ian Campbell, xen-devel
>> Just to your example,
>>
>> libxl_domain_config cfg;
>> cfg.stuff = blah;
>> cfg.rdm.strategy = HOST;
>>
>> libxl_domain_create_new(&cfg, &domid);
>> libxl_domain_destroy(domid);
>>
>> Here looks you mean d_config->rdms would be changed, right? Currently
>> this shouldn't be allowed. But I think we need to further discussion
>> make this case clear after feature freeze since we didn't have this kind
>> of assumption in our previous design.
>>
>> libxl_domain_create_new(&cfg, &domid);
>
> This response of yours does not lead me to think you have understood
> what I am saying, but I agree that this can be dealt with later (if
Indeed, I'm not a fan to Xen tools so I can't picture what this real
scenario would happen. So if I'm misunderstanding what you mean, just
please correct me. Or if you still think its hard to explain this to me,
just tell me what I should do. I think this make your life easy.
Thanks
Tiejun
> indeed it needs to be dealt with at all).
>
> Ian.
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM
2015-07-21 15:22 ` Chen, Tiejun
@ 2015-07-21 15:31 ` Ian Jackson
0 siblings, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread
From: Ian Jackson @ 2015-07-21 15:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chen, Tiejun; +Cc: Stefano Stabellini, Wei Liu, Ian Campbell, xen-devel
Chen, Tiejun writes ("Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM"):
> Indeed, I'm not a fan to Xen tools so I can't picture what this real
> scenario would happen. So if I'm misunderstanding what you mean, just
> please correct me. Or if you still think its hard to explain this to me,
> just tell me what I should do. I think this make your life easy.
Please ignore this line of discussion.
Instead, please simply make it so that if there are any rdms specified
in the domain config, they are used instead of the automatically
gathered information (from strategy and devices).
Thanks,
Ian.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM
2015-07-21 15:09 ` Ian Jackson
@ 2015-07-21 15:42 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-21 15:57 ` Ian Jackson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread
From: Chen, Tiejun @ 2015-07-21 15:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ian Jackson; +Cc: Stefano Stabellini, Wei Liu, Ian Campbell, xen-devel
On 2015/7/21 23:09, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Chen, Tiejun writes ("Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM"):
>> +static void
>> +add_rdm_entry(libxl__gc *gc, libxl_domain_config *d_config,
>> + uint64_t rdm_start, uint64_t rdm_size, int rdm_policy)
>> +{
>> + d_config->num_rdms++;
>> + d_config->rdms = libxl__realloc(NOGC, d_config->rdms,
>> + d_config->num_rdms * sizeof(libxl_device_rdm));
>> +
>> + d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms - 1].start = rdm_start;
>> + d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms - 1].size = rdm_size;
>> + d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms - 1].policy = rdm_policy;
>> +}
>
>
> But, I wrote:
>
> Can I suggest a function
>
> void add_rdm_entry(libxl__gc *gc, libxl_domain_config *d_config,
> uint64_t rdm_start, uint64_t rdm_size, int rdm_policy)
>
> which assumes that d_config->num_rdms is set correctly, and increments
> it ?
>
> (Please put the increment at the end so that the assignments are to
> ->rdms[d_config->num_rdms], or perhaps make a convenience alias.)
>
> Note the last paragraph.
>
> This is now the third time I have posted that text. It is the fifth
> request or clarification I have had to make about this very small
> area. I have to say that I'm finding this rather frustrating.
Sorry, I just ignore the line in brackets since I always think this kind
of thing is often not a big deal, and next time I should pay more
attention to the (). But indeed, before I post this whole patch online I
also picked up this chunk of code to ask you to take a look that. This
manner means I'm not very sure if I'm addressing this properly. But I
didn't get a further response, so I guess that should work for you and
then I posted the whole online.
Now back on our problem,
static void
add_rdm_entry(libxl__gc *gc, libxl_domain_config *d_config,
uint64_t rdm_start, uint64_t rdm_size, int rdm_policy)
{
d_config->rdms = libxl__realloc(NOGC, d_config->rdms,
(d_config->num_rdms+1) * sizeof(libxl_device_rdm));
d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms].start = rdm_start;
d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms].size = rdm_size;
d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms].policy = rdm_policy;
d_config->num_rdms++;
}
Does this work for you? If I'm still wrong, please correct this function
directly to cost you less.
Thanks
Tiejun
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM
2015-07-21 15:42 ` Chen, Tiejun
@ 2015-07-21 15:57 ` Ian Jackson
2015-07-21 15:57 ` Ian Jackson
2015-07-22 0:33 ` Chen, Tiejun
0 siblings, 2 replies; 74+ messages in thread
From: Ian Jackson @ 2015-07-21 15:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chen, Tiejun; +Cc: Stefano Stabellini, Wei Liu, Ian Campbell, xen-devel
Chen, Tiejun writes ("Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM"):
> Sorry, I just ignore the line in brackets since I always think this kind
> of thing is often not a big deal, and next time I should pay more
> attention to the (). But indeed, before I post this whole patch online I
> also picked up this chunk of code to ask you to take a look that. This
> manner means I'm not very sure if I'm addressing this properly. But I
> didn't get a further response, so I guess that should work for you and
> then I posted the whole online.
You are talking about <55AE2BB1.9030604@intel.com> I guess. I replied
to that with several comments about your prose and about the
computation of the new set of rdms.
It's true that I didn't comment on the frat that you had half-done one
of the things I had requested. It is of course a waste of my time to
be constantly re-reviewing half-done changes.
> Now back on our problem,
>
> static void
> add_rdm_entry(libxl__gc *gc, libxl_domain_config *d_config,
> uint64_t rdm_start, uint64_t rdm_size, int rdm_policy)
> {
> d_config->rdms = libxl__realloc(NOGC, d_config->rdms,
> (d_config->num_rdms+1) * sizeof(libxl_device_rdm));
>
> d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms].start = rdm_start;
> d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms].size = rdm_size;
> d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms].policy = rdm_policy;
> d_config->num_rdms++;
> }
>
> Does this work for you? If I'm still wrong, please correct this function
> directly to cost you less.
Yes, that is what I meant.
Ian.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM
2015-07-21 15:57 ` Ian Jackson
@ 2015-07-21 15:57 ` Ian Jackson
2015-07-22 0:33 ` Chen, Tiejun
1 sibling, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread
From: Ian Jackson @ 2015-07-21 15:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chen, Tiejun, xen-devel, Stefano Stabellini, Ian Campbell, Wei Liu
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM"):
> Chen, Tiejun writes ("Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM"):
> > Sorry, I just ignore the line in brackets since I always think this kind
> > of thing is often not a big deal, and next time I should pay more
> > attention to the (). But indeed, before I post this whole patch online I
> > also picked up this chunk of code to ask you to take a look that. This
> > manner means I'm not very sure if I'm addressing this properly. But I
> > didn't get a further response, so I guess that should work for you and
> > then I posted the whole online.
>
> You are talking about <55AE2BB1.9030604@intel.com> I guess. I replied
> to that with several comments about your prose and about the
> computation of the new set of rdms.
>
> It's true that I didn't comment on the frat that you had half-done one
fact
> of the things I had requested. It is of course a waste of my time to
> be constantly re-reviewing half-done changes.
Ian.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM
2015-07-21 15:57 ` Ian Jackson
2015-07-21 15:57 ` Ian Jackson
@ 2015-07-22 0:33 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-22 8:43 ` Ian Campbell
1 sibling, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread
From: Chen, Tiejun @ 2015-07-22 0:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ian Jackson; +Cc: Stefano Stabellini, Wei Liu, Ian Campbell, xen-devel
On 2015/7/21 23:57, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Chen, Tiejun writes ("Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM"):
>> Sorry, I just ignore the line in brackets since I always think this kind
>> of thing is often not a big deal, and next time I should pay more
>> attention to the (). But indeed, before I post this whole patch online I
>> also picked up this chunk of code to ask you to take a look that. This
>> manner means I'm not very sure if I'm addressing this properly. But I
>> didn't get a further response, so I guess that should work for you and
>> then I posted the whole online.
>
> You are talking about <55AE2BB1.9030604@intel.com> I guess. I replied
> to that with several comments about your prose and about the
> computation of the new set of rdms.
>
> It's true that I didn't comment on the frat that you had half-done one
> of the things I had requested. It is of course a waste of my time to
> be constantly re-reviewing half-done changes.
Next time I should see each line of all comments carefully. Maybe its
good way to use IRC to take your quick advice in advance, and I hope
this make you feel better. Anyway, sorry to bring this kind of
inconvenience.
>
>> Now back on our problem,
>>
>> static void
>> add_rdm_entry(libxl__gc *gc, libxl_domain_config *d_config,
>> uint64_t rdm_start, uint64_t rdm_size, int rdm_policy)
>> {
>> d_config->rdms = libxl__realloc(NOGC, d_config->rdms,
>> (d_config->num_rdms+1) * sizeof(libxl_device_rdm));
>>
>> d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms].start = rdm_start;
>> d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms].size = rdm_size;
>> d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms].policy = rdm_policy;
>> d_config->num_rdms++;
>> }
>>
>> Does this work for you? If I'm still wrong, please correct this function
>> directly to cost you less.
>
> Yes, that is what I meant.
>
Good to know.
Thanks
Tiejun
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM
2015-07-22 0:33 ` Chen, Tiejun
@ 2015-07-22 8:43 ` Ian Campbell
2015-07-22 9:18 ` Chen, Tiejun
0 siblings, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread
From: Ian Campbell @ 2015-07-22 8:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chen, Tiejun, Ian Jackson; +Cc: Stefano Stabellini, Wei Liu, xen-devel
On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 08:33 +0800, Chen, Tiejun wrote:
> On 2015/7/21 23:57, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> > It's true that I didn't comment on the frat that you had half-done one
> > of the things I had requested. It is of course a waste of my time to
> > be constantly re-reviewing half-done changes.
> Next time I should see each line of all comments carefully. Maybe its
> good way to use IRC to take your quick advice in advance,
The solution to this is to be systematic in how you handle the email
based review of a series, not to add a further to the reviewer by using
IRC as well.
For example, here is how I handle review of a series I am working on:
I keep all the replies to a series I'm working on marked unread. When I
come to rework the series I take the first reply to the first patch and
start a draft reply to it quoting the entire review.
I then go through the comments one by one and either:
* make the _complete_ code change, including adding the "Changes
in vN" bit to the commit log and delete that comment from the
reply
or
* write a reply in my draft to that particular comment which does
one or more of:
* Explain that I don't understand the suggestion,
probably asking questions to try and clarify what was
being asked for.
* Explain, with reasons, why I disagree with the
suggestion
* Explain, with reasons, why I only implemented part of
the suggestion.
Only then do I move on to the next comment in that mail and repeat. At
the end I've either deleted all the comments from my draft (because
I've fully implemented everything) so the draft can be discarded or I
have an email to send explaining what I've not done and why. Only now
do I mark the original review email as read.
Then I move on to the next reply to that thread in my mail box and
repeat until I have been through every mail in the thread and addressed
_all_ of the comments.
At the end of this process _every_ bit of review feedback is addressed
either by making the requested change or by responding explaining the
reason why the change hasn't been made. This is absolutely crucial. You
should never silently ignore a piece of review, even if you don't
understand it or disagree with it, always reply and explain why you
haven't.
If the review was particularly long or complex I will then do a second
pass through the review comments and check that every comment is either
mentioned in a "Changes in vN" changelog comment or I have replied to
it.
I do all of that before posting the next version. IMHO until a
contributor has shown they are diligent about addressing review
comments they should _never_ send out a series which only has review
partially addressed.
The presence of an IRC channel in no way changes the requirement to be
systematic and thorough when dealing with email review.
Ian.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM
2015-07-22 8:43 ` Ian Campbell
@ 2015-07-22 9:18 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-22 10:28 ` Ian Jackson
2015-07-22 10:51 ` Ian Campbell
0 siblings, 2 replies; 74+ messages in thread
From: Chen, Tiejun @ 2015-07-22 9:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ian Campbell, Ian Jackson; +Cc: xen-devel, Wei Liu, Stefano Stabellini
Thanks for your clarification to me.
> The solution to this is to be systematic in how you handle the email
> based review of a series, not to add a further to the reviewer by using
> IRC as well.
>
> For example, here is how I handle review of a series I am working on:
>
> I keep all the replies to a series I'm working on marked unread. When I
> come to rework the series I take the first reply to the first patch and
> start a draft reply to it quoting the entire review.
>
> I then go through the comments one by one and either:
>
> * make the _complete_ code change, including adding the "Changes
> in vN" bit to the commit log and delete that comment from the
> reply
Are you saying this case of resending this particular patch online?
> or
> * write a reply in my draft to that particular comment which does
> one or more of:
>
> * Explain that I don't understand the suggestion,
> probably asking questions to try and clarify what was
> being asked for.
Yes, in this case we're arguing, I was really trying to send a sample of
this code fragment to ask this before I sent out the complete change.
> * Explain, with reasons, why I disagree with the
> suggestion
> * Explain, with reasons, why I only implemented part of
> the suggestion.
>
> Only then do I move on to the next comment in that mail and repeat. At
> the end I've either deleted all the comments from my draft (because
> I've fully implemented everything) so the draft can be discarded or I
> have an email to send explaining what I've not done and why. Only now
> do I mark the original review email as read.
>
> Then I move on to the next reply to that thread in my mail box and
> repeat until I have been through every mail in the thread and addressed
> _all_ of the comments.
>
> At the end of this process _every_ bit of review feedback is addressed
> either by making the requested change or by responding explaining the
> reason why the change hasn't been made. This is absolutely crucial. You
> should never silently ignore a piece of review, even if you don't
I should double check each line but sometimes this doesn't mean I can
understand everything correctly to do right thing as you expect. But
this is really not what I intend to do.
Thanks
Tiejun
> understand it or disagree with it, always reply and explain why you
> haven't.
>
> If the review was particularly long or complex I will then do a second
> pass through the review comments and check that every comment is either
> mentioned in a "Changes in vN" changelog comment or I have replied to
> it.
>
> I do all of that before posting the next version. IMHO until a
> contributor has shown they are diligent about addressing review
> comments they should _never_ send out a series which only has review
> partially addressed.
>
> The presence of an IRC channel in no way changes the requirement to be
> systematic and thorough when dealing with email review.
>
> Ian.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM
2015-07-22 9:18 ` Chen, Tiejun
@ 2015-07-22 10:28 ` Ian Jackson
2015-07-22 10:51 ` Ian Campbell
1 sibling, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread
From: Ian Jackson @ 2015-07-22 10:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chen, Tiejun; +Cc: xen-devel, Wei Liu, Ian Campbell, Stefano Stabellini
Chen, Tiejun writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM"):
> > I then go through the comments one by one and either:
> >
> > * make the _complete_ code change, including adding the "Changes
> > in vN" bit to the commit log and delete that comment from the
> > reply
>
> Are you saying this case of resending this particular patch online?
Here is an example of what Ian C is talking about: You failed to
address all my comments before posting v10. That caused me to post
this:
This is now the third time I have posted that text. It is the fifth
request or clarification I have had to make about this very small
area. I have to say that I'm finding this rather frustrating.
You should have been systematic. Like Ian C suggests. I do it that
way too. Instead, you repeatedly left things undone.
> Yes, in this case we're arguing, I was really trying to send a sample of
> this code fragment to ask this before I sent out the complete change.
No, your v10 series was not a "sample".
It is of course OK to post a sample. But a reviewer will not read
such a sample thoroughly; they will not look for all problems. The
reviewer will look at the sample, so that the reviewer can understand
your words. They will consider the aspects of the sample that are
being discussed. They will not consider other aspects of the sample.
You did post such a sample in <55AE2BB1.9030604@intel.com>. I read
the sample, to understand what your words meant.
Then later, you complained that:
But indeed, before I post this whole patch online I also picked up
this chunk of code to ask you to take a look that.
Ie you complained that I did not thoroughly review your "sample".
You cannot have this both ways. When you are posting a "sample", it
is purely to illuminate the particular discussion. When you are
posting a full patch for review, you must have addressed _every_
previous comment.
Ian.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM
2015-07-22 9:18 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-22 10:28 ` Ian Jackson
@ 2015-07-22 10:51 ` Ian Campbell
1 sibling, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread
From: Ian Campbell @ 2015-07-22 10:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chen, Tiejun, Ian Jackson; +Cc: xen-devel, Wei Liu, Stefano Stabellini
On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 17:18 +0800, Chen, Tiejun wrote:
> Thanks for your clarification to me.
>
> > The solution to this is to be systematic in how you handle the
> > email
> > based review of a series, not to add a further to the reviewer by
> > using
> > IRC as well.
> >
> > For example, here is how I handle review of a series I am working
> > on:
> >
> > I keep all the replies to a series I'm working on marked unread.
> > When I
> > come to rework the series I take the first reply to the first patch
> > and
> > start a draft reply to it quoting the entire review.
> >
> > I then go through the comments one by one and either:
> >
> > * make the _complete_ code change, including adding the
> > "Changes
> > in vN" bit to the commit log and delete that comment from
> > the
> > reply
>
> Are you saying this case of resending this particular patch online?
No, I am talking about making the change in my local git tree. Only
once I have addressed _all_ of the review of the whole series would I
resent a complete new version of the series for further review.
>
> > or
> > * write a reply in my draft to that particular comment which
> > does
> > one or more of:
> >
> > * Explain that I don't understand the suggestion,
> > probably asking questions to try and clarify what
> > was
> > being asked for.
>
> Yes, in this case we're arguing, I was really trying to send a sample
> of
> this code fragment to ask this before I sent out the complete change.
I was not talking about any specific case here.
> > At the end of this process _every_ bit of review feedback is addressed
> > either by making the requested change or by responding explaining the
> > reason why the change hasn't been made. This is absolutely crucial. You
> > should never silently ignore a piece of review, even if you don't
>
> I should double check each line but sometimes this doesn't mean I can
>
> understand everything correctly to do right thing as you expect. But
> this is really not what I intend to do.
I have outlined my strategy for dealing with review which helps
avoid/minimise the error rate (i.e. failing to address comments) when
dealing with reviews. I hope it will be helpful for you in forming your
own strategy.
Ian.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-07-22 10:51 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 74+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2015-07-20 6:16 [v10][PATCH 00/16] Fix RMRR Tiejun Chen
2015-07-20 6:16 ` [v10][PATCH 01/16] xen: introduce XENMEM_reserved_device_memory_map Tiejun Chen
2015-07-20 6:16 ` [v10][PATCH 02/16] xen/vtd: create RMRR mapping Tiejun Chen
2015-07-20 6:16 ` [v10][PATCH 03/16] xen/passthrough: extend hypercall to support rdm reservation policy Tiejun Chen
2015-07-20 6:16 ` [v10][PATCH 04/16] xen: enable XENMEM_memory_map in hvm Tiejun Chen
2015-07-20 6:16 ` [v10][PATCH 05/16] hvmloader: get guest memory map into memory_map[] Tiejun Chen
2015-07-20 6:16 ` [v10][PATCH 06/16] hvmloader/pci: Try to avoid placing BARs in RMRRs Tiejun Chen
2015-07-20 11:00 ` George Dunlap
2015-07-20 11:30 ` Jan Beulich
2015-07-20 12:52 ` George Dunlap
2015-07-20 14:06 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-20 14:10 ` George Dunlap
2015-07-20 14:16 ` Jan Beulich
2015-07-20 14:32 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-20 15:00 ` Jan Beulich
2015-07-21 0:53 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-21 6:18 ` Jan Beulich
2015-07-21 9:42 ` George Dunlap
2015-07-20 6:16 ` [v10][PATCH 07/16] hvmloader/e820: construct guest e820 table Tiejun Chen
2015-07-20 11:56 ` Jan Beulich
2015-07-20 14:35 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-20 15:03 ` Jan Beulich
2015-07-20 13:00 ` George Dunlap
2015-07-20 13:23 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-20 13:50 ` George Dunlap
2015-07-20 13:57 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-20 6:16 ` [v10][PATCH 08/16] tools/libxc: Expose new hypercall xc_reserved_device_memory_map Tiejun Chen
2015-07-20 6:16 ` [v10][PATCH 09/16] tools: extend xc_assign_device() to support rdm reservation policy Tiejun Chen
2015-07-20 6:16 ` [v10][PATCH 10/16] tools: introduce some new parameters to set rdm policy Tiejun Chen
2015-07-20 6:16 ` [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM Tiejun Chen
2015-07-20 13:32 ` Ian Jackson
2015-07-20 14:40 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-20 14:53 ` Ian Jackson
2015-07-20 15:08 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-20 15:24 ` Ian Jackson
2015-07-20 15:38 ` Ian Campbell
2015-07-21 6:44 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-21 6:45 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-21 6:38 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-21 10:48 ` Ian Jackson
2015-07-21 11:12 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-21 10:41 ` Ian Jackson
2015-07-21 11:04 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-21 11:11 ` Ian Jackson
2015-07-21 11:23 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-21 11:27 ` Ian Jackson
2015-07-21 11:45 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-21 12:33 ` Ian Jackson
2015-07-21 13:29 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-21 15:09 ` Ian Jackson
2015-07-21 15:42 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-21 15:57 ` Ian Jackson
2015-07-21 15:57 ` Ian Jackson
2015-07-22 0:33 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-22 8:43 ` Ian Campbell
2015-07-22 9:18 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-22 10:28 ` Ian Jackson
2015-07-22 10:51 ` Ian Campbell
2015-07-21 13:41 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-21 15:10 ` Ian Jackson
2015-07-21 15:22 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-21 15:31 ` Ian Jackson
2015-07-21 12:04 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-21 12:34 ` Ian Jackson
2015-07-20 6:16 ` [v10][PATCH 12/16] tools: introduce a new parameter to set a predefined rdm boundary Tiejun Chen
2015-07-20 6:17 ` [v10][PATCH 13/16] libxl: construct e820 map with RDM information for HVM guest Tiejun Chen
2015-07-20 13:34 ` Ian Jackson
2015-07-20 6:17 ` [v10][PATCH 14/16] xen/vtd: enable USB device assignment Tiejun Chen
2015-07-20 6:17 ` [v10][PATCH 15/16] xen/vtd: prevent from assign the device with shared rmrr Tiejun Chen
2015-07-20 6:17 ` [v10][PATCH 16/16] tools: parse to enable new rdm policy parameters Tiejun Chen
2015-07-20 13:43 ` Ian Jackson
2015-07-20 13:53 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-20 10:37 ` [v10][PATCH 00/16] Fix RMRR George Dunlap
2015-07-20 12:39 ` Chen, Tiejun
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).