From: Penny Zheng <Penny.Zheng@arm.com>
To: Julien Grall <julien@xen.org>,
"xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>,
"sstabellini@kernel.org" <sstabellini@kernel.org>
Cc: Bertrand Marquis <Bertrand.Marquis@arm.com>,
Wei Chen <Wei.Chen@arm.com>, nd <nd@arm.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH V4 01/10] xen/arm: introduce domain on Static Allocation
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2021 02:28:13 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <VE1PR08MB5215EB625C7E380553C10B25F7FE9@VE1PR08MB5215.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9a6e7689-50e2-f046-4ebb-ebbafc769f26@xen.org>
Hi Julien
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julien Grall <julien@xen.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2021 1:28 AM
> To: Penny Zheng <Penny.Zheng@arm.com>; xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org;
> sstabellini@kernel.org
> Cc: Bertrand Marquis <Bertrand.Marquis@arm.com>; Wei Chen
> <Wei.Chen@arm.com>; nd <nd@arm.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 01/10] xen/arm: introduce domain on Static Allocation
>
>
>
> On 16/08/2021 06:21, Penny Zheng wrote:
> > Hi Julien
>
> Hi Penny,
>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Julien Grall <julien@xen.org>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2021 9:32 PM
> >> To: Penny Zheng <Penny.Zheng@arm.com>;
> >> xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; sstabellini@kernel.org
> >> Cc: Bertrand Marquis <Bertrand.Marquis@arm.com>; Wei Chen
> >> <Wei.Chen@arm.com>; nd <nd@arm.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 01/10] xen/arm: introduce domain on Static
> >> Allocation
> >>
> >> Hi Penny,
> >>
> >> On 28/07/2021 11:27, Penny Zheng wrote:
> >>> Static Allocation refers to system or sub-system(domains) for which
> >>> memory areas are pre-defined by configuration using physical address
> >> ranges.
> >>> Those pre-defined memory, -- Static Memory, as parts of RAM reserved
> >>> in the beginning, shall never go to heap allocator or boot allocator
> >>> for any
> >> use.
> >>>
> >>> Domains on Static Allocation is supported through device tree
> >>> property `xen,static-mem` specifying reserved RAM banks as this domain's
> guest RAM.
> >>> By default, they shall be mapped to the fixed guest RAM address
> >>> `GUEST_RAM0_BASE`, `GUEST_RAM1_BASE`.
> >>>
> >>> This patch introduces this new `xen,static-mem` feature, and also
> >>> documents and parses this new attribute at boot time and stores
> >>> related info in static_mem for later initialization.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Penny Zheng <penny.zheng@arm.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++
> >>> xen/arch/arm/bootfdt.c | 51 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>> xen/include/asm-arm/setup.h | 2 ++
> >>> 3 files changed, 93 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt
> >>> b/docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt
> >>> index 5243bc7fd3..2a1ddca29b 100644
> >>> --- a/docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt
> >>> +++ b/docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt
> >>> @@ -268,3 +268,43 @@ The DTB fragment is loaded at 0xc000000 in the
> >> example above. It should
> >>> follow the convention explained in docs/misc/arm/passthrough.txt. The
> >>> DTB fragment will be added to the guest device tree, so that the guest
> >>> kernel will be able to discover the device.
> >>> +
> >>> +
> >>> +Static Allocation
> >>> +=============
> >>> +
> >>> +Static Allocation refers to system or sub-system(domains) for which
> >>> +memory areas are pre-defined by configuration using physical
> >>> +address
> >> ranges.
> >>> +Those pre-defined memory, -- Static Memory, as parts of RAM
> >>> +reserved in the beginning, shall never go to heap allocator or boot
> >>> +allocator for any
> >> use.
> >>
> >> I don't understand "as parts of RAM reserved in the beginning". Could
> >> you clarify it?
> >>
> >
> > I mean, static memory is very alike reserved memory, reserved during
> > system boot time, not dynamically allocated at runtime.
>
> Thanks for the clarification. The documentation is meant to be for the users, so
> I would suggest to drop the "-- Static memory, as parse of RAM reserved"
> because it doesn't add any value to know we treat the static memory and
> reserved memory the same way.
>
Got it. Thx
> >>> +
> >>> +The dtb property should look like as follows:
> >>
> >> Do you mean "node" rather than "property"?
> >>
> >
> > Oh, sure. Maybe "as an example" shall be more clarified.
>
> I would write "Below an example on how to specific the static memory region
> in the device-tree".
>
Thanks for the example. Will do
> >
> >>> + compatible = "xen,domain";
> >>> + #address-cells = <0x2>;
> >>> + #size-cells = <0x2>;
> >>> + cpus = <2>;
> >>> + #xen,static-mem-address-cells = <0x1>;
> >>> + #xen,static-mem-size-cells = <0x1>;
> >>> + xen,static-mem = <0x30000000 0x20000000>;
> >>> + ...
> >>> + };
> >>> + };
> >>> + };
> >>> +
> >>> +DomU1 will have a static memory of 512MB reserved from the physical
> >>> +address
> >>> +0x30000000 to 0x50000000.
> >>
> >> I would write "This will reserve a 512MB region starting at the host
> >> physical address 0x30000000 to be exclusively used by DomU1".
> >>
> >
> > Sure, thx.
> >
> >>> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/bootfdt.c b/xen/arch/arm/bootfdt.c index
> >>> 476e32e0f5..d2714446e1 100644
> >>> --- a/xen/arch/arm/bootfdt.c
> >>> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/bootfdt.c
> >>> @@ -193,6 +193,55 @@ static int __init
> >> process_reserved_memory_node(const void *fdt, int node,
> >>> return 0;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> +static int __init process_static_memory(const void *fdt, int node,
> >>> +void *data) {
> >>
> >> This is pretty much a copy of process_memory_node(). So can we avoid
> >> the duplication?
> >>
> >> I think I mentionned it in the past but I can't find the outcome.
> >>
> >>> + int i = 0, banks;
> >>> + const __be32 *cell;
> >>> + paddr_t start, size;
> >>> + u32 address_cells, size_cells, reg_cells;
> >>> + struct meminfo *mem = data;
> >>> + const struct fdt_property *prop;
> >>> +
> >>> +
> >>> + address_cells = device_tree_get_u32(fdt, node,
> >>> + "#xen,static-mem-address-cells", 0);
> >>> + size_cells = device_tree_get_u32(fdt, node,
> >>> + "#xen,static-mem-size-cells", 0);
> >>> + if ( (address_cells == 0) || (size_cells == 0) )
> >>> + {
> >>> + printk("Missing \"#xen,static-mem-address-cell\" or "
> >>> + "\"#xen,static-mem-address-cell\".\n");
> >>> + return -EINVAL;
> >>> + }
> >>> + reg_cells = address_cells + size_cells;
> >>> +
> >>> + prop = fdt_get_property(fdt, node, "xen,static-mem", NULL);
> >>> + /*
> >>> + * Static memory shall belong to a specific domain, that is,
> >>> + * its node `domUx` has compatible string "xen,domain".
> >>> + */
> >>
> >> This code is just checking the node compatible is "xen,domain". So I
> >> would drop the "domUx". This is also...
> >>
> >>> + if ( fdt_node_check_compatible(fdt, node, "xen,domain") != 0 )
> >>> + {
> >>> + printk("xen,static-mem property can only be located under
> >>> + /domUx node.\n");
> >>
> >> ... not correct.
> >>
> >
> > I checked it here, to make sure the "xen,static-mem" property must be
> > used in a domain node, since for now, static memory could be only
> configured as guest RAM.
> >
> > Which part do you think it is not appropriate here?
>
> You wrote "... can only be located under /domUx". That's not correct because
> we don't force (or even mention to) the user to name the node that way.
>
>
> >
> >>> + return -EINVAL;
> >>> + }
> >>> +
> >>> + cell = (const __be32 *)prop->data;
> >>> + banks = fdt32_to_cpu(prop->len) / (reg_cells * sizeof (u32));
> >>> +
> >>> + for ( ; i < banks && mem->nr_banks < NR_MEM_BANKS; i++ )
> >>> + {
> >>> + device_tree_get_reg(&cell, address_cells, size_cells, &start, &size);
> >>> + mem->bank[mem->nr_banks].start = start;
> >>> + mem->bank[mem->nr_banks].size = size;
> >>> + mem->nr_banks++;
> >>> + }
> >>> +
> >>> + if ( i < banks )
> >>> + return -ENOSPC;
> >>> + return 0;
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> static int __init process_reserved_memory(const void *fdt, int node,
> >>> const char *name, int depth,
> >>> u32 address_cells, u32
> >>> size_cells) @@ -346,6 +395,8 @@ static int __init
> >>> early_scan_node(const
> >> void *fdt,
> >>> process_multiboot_node(fdt, node, name, address_cells, size_cells);
> >>> else if ( depth == 1 && device_tree_node_matches(fdt, node,
> "chosen") )
> >>> process_chosen_node(fdt, node, name, address_cells,
> >>> size_cells);
> >>> + else if ( depth == 2 && fdt_get_property(fdt, node,
> >>> + "xen,static-mem", NULL) )
> >>
> >> How about checking the compatible instead?
> >>
> >
> > hmm, since it is a property, not a node. so...
> Right, but you could write:
>
> device_tree_node_compatible(fdt, node, "xen,domain")
>
> This would be more correct because we are interested in node using the Xen
> domain binding that contains the property "xen,static-mem".
>
> All the other nodes with the property "xen,static-mem" should be left alone
> because it may have a different meaning.
>
True, true. Will do
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Julien Grall
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-08-17 2:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-07-28 10:27 [PATCH V4 00/10] Domain on Static Allocation Penny Zheng
2021-07-28 10:27 ` [PATCH V4 01/10] xen/arm: introduce domain " Penny Zheng
2021-08-11 13:32 ` Julien Grall
2021-08-16 5:21 ` Penny Zheng
2021-08-16 17:27 ` Julien Grall
2021-08-17 2:28 ` Penny Zheng [this message]
2021-07-28 10:27 ` [PATCH V4 02/10] xen/arm: introduce new helper device_tree_get_meminfo Penny Zheng
2021-08-11 13:35 ` Julien Grall
2021-08-16 5:27 ` Penny Zheng
2021-07-28 10:27 ` [PATCH V4 03/10] xen/arm: handle static memory in dt_unreserved_regions Penny Zheng
2021-08-11 13:48 ` Julien Grall
2021-08-16 6:00 ` Penny Zheng
2021-08-16 17:33 ` Julien Grall
2021-07-28 10:27 ` [PATCH V4 04/10] xen: introduce mark_page_free Penny Zheng
2021-08-11 14:08 ` Julien Grall
2021-07-28 10:27 ` [PATCH V4 05/10] xen/arm: static memory initialization Penny Zheng
2021-08-04 15:54 ` Jan Beulich
2021-08-13 12:20 ` Julien Grall
2021-08-16 6:12 ` Penny Zheng
2021-08-13 12:38 ` Julien Grall
2021-08-16 7:00 ` Wei Chen
2021-07-28 10:27 ` [PATCH V4 06/10] xen/arm: introduce PGC_reserved Penny Zheng
2021-08-13 12:21 ` Julien Grall
2021-08-16 6:13 ` Penny Zheng
2021-07-28 10:27 ` [PATCH V4 07/10] xen: re-define assign_pages and introduce assign_page Penny Zheng
2021-08-05 6:34 ` Jan Beulich
2021-08-13 12:27 ` Julien Grall
2021-08-13 12:32 ` Jan Beulich
2021-08-17 8:21 ` Penny Zheng
2021-07-28 10:27 ` [PATCH V4 08/10] xen/arm: introduce acquire_staticmem_pages and acquire_domstatic_pages Penny Zheng
2021-08-05 6:52 ` Jan Beulich
2021-08-13 13:00 ` Julien Grall
2021-08-16 6:43 ` Penny Zheng
2021-08-16 17:43 ` Julien Grall
2021-08-17 2:33 ` Penny Zheng
2021-07-28 10:27 ` [PATCH V4 09/10] xen/arm: check "xen,static-mem" property during domain construction Penny Zheng
2021-08-13 13:12 ` Julien Grall
2021-08-16 6:53 ` Penny Zheng
2021-07-28 10:27 ` [PATCH V4 10/10] xen/arm: introduce allocate_static_memory Penny Zheng
2021-08-13 13:36 ` Julien Grall
2021-08-16 7:51 ` Penny Zheng
2021-08-16 17:55 ` Julien Grall
2021-08-17 2:36 ` Penny Zheng
2021-07-28 10:27 ` [PATCH V4 04/10] xen: introduce mark_page_free Penny Zheng
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=VE1PR08MB5215EB625C7E380553C10B25F7FE9@VE1PR08MB5215.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com \
--to=penny.zheng@arm.com \
--cc=Bertrand.Marquis@arm.com \
--cc=Wei.Chen@arm.com \
--cc=julien@xen.org \
--cc=nd@arm.com \
--cc=sstabellini@kernel.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).