Re: [v7][PATCH 06/16] hvmloader/pci: skip reserved ranges

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

>>> On 15.07.15 at 15:40, <dunlapg@umich.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>> Therefore I'll not make any further comments on the rest of the
>> patch, but instead outline an allocation model that I think would
>> fit our needs: Subject to the constraints mentioned above, set up
>> a bitmap (maximum size 64k [2Gb = 2^^19 pages needing 2^^19
>> bits], i.e. reasonably small a memory block). Each bit represents a
>> page usable for MMIO: First of all you remove the range from
>> PCI_MEM_END upwards. Then remove all RDM pages. Now do a
>> first pass over all devices, allocating (in the bitmap) space for only
>> the 32-bit MMIO BARs, starting with the biggest one(s), by finding
>> a best fit (i.e. preferably a range not usable by any bigger BAR)
>> from top down. For example, if you have available
>>
>> [f0000000,f8000000)
>> [f9000000,f9001000)
>> [fa000000,fa003000)
>> [fa010000,fa012000)
>>
>> and you're looking for a single page slot, you should end up
>> picking fa002000.
>>
>> After this pass you should be able to do RAM relocation in a
>> single attempt just like we do today (you may still grow the MMIO
>> window if you know you need to and can fit some of the 64-bit
>> BARs in there, subject to said constraints; this is in an attempt
>> to help OSes not comfortable with 64-bit resources).
>>
>> In a 2nd pass you'd then assign 64-bit resources: If you can fit
>> them below 4G (you still have the bitmap left of what you've got
>> available), put them there. Allocation strategy could be the same
>> as above (biggest first), perhaps allowing for some factoring out
>> of logic, but here smallest first probably could work equally well.
>> The main thought to decide between the two is whether it is
>> better to fit as many (small) or as big (in total) as possible a set
>> under 4G. I'd generally expect the former (as many as possible,
>> leaving only a few huge ones to go above 4G) to be the better
>> approach, but that's more a gut feeling than based on hard data.
> 
> I agree that it would be more sensible for hvmloader to make a "plan"
> first, and then do the memory reallocation (if it's possible) at one
> time, then go through and actually update the device BARs according to
> the "plan".
> 
> However, I don't really see how having a bitmap really helps in this
> case.  I would think having a list of free ranges (perhaps aligned by
> powers of two?), sorted small->large, makes the most sense.

I view bitmap vs list as just two different representations, and I
picked the bitmap approach as being more compact storage wise
in case there are many regions to deal with. I'd be fine with a list
approach too, provided lookup times don't become prohibitive.

Jan