From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:32807)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <marcel.a@redhat.com>) id 1VeXKb-0005W5-6j
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 16:41:43 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <marcel.a@redhat.com>) id 1VeXKV-0006Sh-8i
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 16:41:37 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:23341)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <marcel.a@redhat.com>) id 1VeXKU-0006R3-Id
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 16:41:30 -0500
Message-ID: <1383860314.2527.72.camel@localhost.localdomain>
From: Marcel Apfelbaum <marcel.a@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 23:38:34 +0200
In-Reply-To: <527C06B5.2020401@redhat.com>
References: <1383511723-11228-1-git-send-email-marcel.a@redhat.com>
	<CAFe8ug9hauGmXE6GFKa6sRzQ3Thm=RmAh4EQsoYMeOS9j_RyjA@mail.gmail.com>
	<527C023F.2060506@redhat.com>
	<1383859470.2527.64.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<527C06B5.2020401@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] exec: fix regression by making
 system-memory region UINT64_MAX size
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>, "edk2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net" <edk2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>, qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, Jordan Justen <jljusten@gmail.com>, Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>, Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>, afaerber <afaerber@suse.de>, rth@twiddle.net

On Thu, 2013-11-07 at 22:31 +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 07/11/2013 22:24, Marcel Apfelbaum ha scritto:
> > Thank you Laszlo for the detailed info!
> > I think the problem is right above. Why pci-hole and system.flash collide?
> > IMHO we should not play with priorities here, better solve the collision.
> 
> We need to audit all the other boards that support PCI...  I'll take a
> look tomorrow since you guys are off.
Thanks Paolo,
Let me just point out what I know (or I think I know):
1. Not all architectures have the behavior: "Address space that is not RAM(and friends) is for sure PCI".
   Only x86 behaves like this (I think). That means that you cannot have a 64bit wide pci-hole
   with lower priority that catches all accesses that are not for RAM(and firends).
2. If the above is right, and making pci-hole 64 bit wide is not an option,
   playing with pci-holes/other-region priorities it would be just wrong,
   it would be only to "fight" with the locality of the memory region's priority.

That being said, I am looking forward for your findings.
Thanks!
Marcel
  
> 
> Paolo