Re: [PATCH V3 4/6] xen/unpopulated-alloc: Add mechanism to use Xen resource

[Oleksandr <olekstysh@gmail.com>]

On 08.12.21 01:36, Stefano Stabellini wrote:


Hi Stefano

> On Thu, 25 Nov 2021, Oleksandr wrote:
>>>> Please note the following:
>>>> for V3 arch_xen_unpopulated_init() was moved to init() as was agreed
>>>> and gained __init specifier. So the target_resource is initialized there.
>>>>
>>>> With current patch series applied if CONFIG_XEN_UNPOPULATED_ALLOC
>>>> is enabled:
>>>>
>>>> 1. On Arm, under normal circumstances, the xen_alloc_unpopulated_pages()
>>>> won't be called “before” arch_xen_unpopulated_init(). It will only be
>>>> called "before" when either ACPI is in use or something wrong happened
>>>> with DT (and we failed to read xen_grant_frames), so we fallback to
>>>> xen_xlate_map_ballooned_pages() in arm/xen/enlighten.c:xen_guest_init(),
>>>> please see "arm/xen: Switch to use gnttab_setup_auto_xlat_frames() for DT"
>>>> for details. But in that case, I think, it doesn't matter much whether
>>>> xen_alloc_unpopulated_pages() is called "before" of "after"
>>>> target_resource
>>>> initialization, as we don't have extended regions in place the
>>>> target_resource
>>>> will remain invalid even after initialization, so
>>>> xen_alloc_ballooned_pages()
>>>> will be used in both scenarios.
>>>>
>>>> 2. On x86, I am not quite sure which modes use unpopulated-alloc (PVH?),
>>>> but it looks like xen_alloc_unpopulated_pages() can (and will) be called
>>>> “before” arch_xen_unpopulated_init().
>>>> At least, I see that xen_xlate_map_ballooned_pages() is called in
>>>> x86/xen/grant-table.c:xen_pvh_gnttab_setup(). According to the initcall
>>>> levels for both xen_pvh_gnttab_setup() and init() I expect the former
>>>> to be called earlier.
>>>> If it is true, the sentence in the commit description which mentions
>>>> that “behaviour on x86 is not changed” is not precise. I don’t think
>>>> it would be correct to fallback to xen_alloc_ballooned_pages() just
>>>> because we haven’t initialized target_resource yet (on x86 it is just
>>>> assigning it iomem_resource), at least this doesn't look like an expected
>>>> behaviour and unlikely would be welcome.
>>>>
>>>> I am wondering whether it would be better to move
>>>> arch_xen_unpopulated_init()
>>>> to a dedicated init() marked with an appropriate initcall level
>>>> (early_initcall?)
>>>> to make sure it will always be called *before*
>>>> xen_xlate_map_ballooned_pages().
>>>> What do you think?
>>     ... here (#2). Or I really missed something and there wouldn't be an issue?
> Yes, I see your point. Yeah, it makes sense to make sure that
> drivers/xen/unpopulated-alloc.c:init is executed before
> xen_pvh_gnttab_setup.
>
> If we move it to early_initcall, then we end up running it before
> xen_guest_init on ARM. But that might be fine: it looks like it should
> work OK and would also allow us to execute xen_xlate_map_ballooned_pages
> with target_resource already set.
>
> So I'd say go for it :)


Thank you for the confirmation! In order to be on the safe side, I would 
probably leave drivers/xen/unpopulated-alloc.c:init as is, I mean with 
current subsys initcall level (it expects the extra memory regions to be 
already filled)
and create a separate unpopulated_init() to put 
arch_xen_unpopulated_init() into. Something like the following:

static int __init unpopulated_init(void)
{
     int ret;

     if (!xen_domain())
         return -ENODEV;

     ret = arch_xen_unpopulated_init(&target_resource);
     if (ret) {
         pr_err("xen:unpopulated: Cannot initialize target resource\n");
         target_resource = NULL;
     }

     return ret;
}
early_initcall(unpopulated_init);




-- 
Regards,

Oleksandr Tyshchenko