From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Chen, Tiejun" <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [v3][PATCH 07/16] hvmloader/pci: skip reserved
	ranges
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 17:18:25 +0800
Message-ID: <55813B61.6020206@intel.com>
References: <1433985325-16676-1-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com>
	<1433985325-16676-8-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com>
	<AADFC41AFE54684AB9EE6CBC0274A5D12628A198@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
	<557A9000.600@intel.com>
	<AADFC41AFE54684AB9EE6CBC0274A5D12628FF32@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
	<557FEC6A.1080003@intel.com>
	<55800B21020000780008561E@mail.emea.novell.com>
	<55811D50.2070002@intel.com>
	<55813BA60200007800085D93@mail.emea.novell.com>
	<558127B7.5060800@intel.com>
	<5581466C0200007800085DEC@mail.emea.novell.com>
	<55812F2D.2030504@intel.com>
	<558153D30200007800085E77@mail.emea.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <558153D30200007800085E77@mail.emea.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>, Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
Cc: "tim@xen.org" <tim@xen.org>, "wei.liu2@citrix.com" <wei.liu2@citrix.com>, "ian.campbell@citrix.com" <ian.campbell@citrix.com>, "andrew.cooper3@citrix.com" <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>, "Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com" <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>, "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>, "stefano.stabellini@citrix.com" <stefano.stabellini@citrix.com>, Yang Z Zhang <yang.z.zhang@intel.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 2015/6/17 17:02, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 17.06.15 at 10:26, <tiejun.chen@intel.com> wrote:
>> Something hits me to generate another idea,
>>
>> #1. Still allocate all devices as before.
>> #2. Lookup all actual bars to check if they're conflicting RMRR
>>
>> We can skip these bars to keep zero. Then later it would make lookup easily.
>>
>> #3. Need to reallocate these conflicting bars.
>> #3.1 Trying to reallocate them with the remaining resources
>> #3.2 If the remaining resources aren't enough, we need to allocate them
>> from high_mem_resource.
>
> That's possible onyl for 64-bit BARs.

You're right so this means its not proper to adjust mmio_total to 
include conflicting reserved ranges and finally moved all conflicting 
bars to high_mem_resource as Kevin suggested previously, so i high 
level, we still need to decrease pci_mem_start to populate more RAM to 
compensate them as I did, right?

>
>> I just feel this way may be easy and better. And even, this way also can
>> help terminate the preexisting allocation failures, right?
>
> I think this complicates things rather than simplifying them: The
> more passes (and adjustments to previous settings) you do, the
> more error prone the whole logic will become. It may well be that
> you need to basically re-write what is there right now...
>

Yeah,  we need to think about this carefully.

Thanks
Tiejun