From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:59448) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gz3Mx-000847-3B for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 12:51:48 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gz3Mv-0001cx-C7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 12:51:47 -0500 Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 18:51:23 +0100 From: Igor Mammedov Message-ID: <20190227185123.314171ae@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <5FC3163CFD30C246ABAA99954A238FA8392D6690@lhreml524-mbs.china.huawei.com> References: <20190220224003.4420-1-eric.auger@redhat.com> <20190222172742.18c3835a@redhat.com> <20190225104212.7d40e65e@Igors-MacBook-Pro.local> <70249194-349e-37f6-0e8d-dc50b39082b7@redhat.com> <20190226175653.6ca2b6c4@Igors-MacBook-Pro.local> <20190227111025.4bb39cc7@redhat.com> <116c5375-0ff4-8f91-ac05-05a53e7fe206@redhat.com> <5FC3163CFD30C246ABAA99954A238FA8392D6690@lhreml524-mbs.china.huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v7 00/17] ARM virt: Initial RAM expansion and PCDIMM/NVDIMM support List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Shameerali Kolothum Thodi Cc: Auger Eric , "peter.maydell@linaro.org" , "drjones@redhat.com" , "david@redhat.com" , "dgilbert@redhat.com" , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" , "qemu-arm@nongnu.org" , "eric.auger.pro@gmail.com" , "david@gibson.dropbear.id.au" , Linuxarm On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 10:41:45 +0000 Shameerali Kolothum Thodi wrote: > Hi Eric, >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Auger Eric [mailto:eric.auger@redhat.com] > > Sent: 27 February 2019 10:27 > > To: Igor Mammedov > > Cc: peter.maydell@linaro.org; drjones@redhat.com; david@redhat.com; > > dgilbert@redhat.com; Shameerali Kolothum Thodi > > ; qemu-devel@nongnu.org; > > qemu-arm@nongnu.org; eric.auger.pro@gmail.com; > > david@gibson.dropbear.id.au > > Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v7 00/17] ARM virt: Initial RAM expans= ion > > and PCDIMM/NVDIMM support > >=20 > > Hi Igor, Shameer, > >=20 > > On 2/27/19 11:10 AM, Igor Mammedov wrote: =20 > > > On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 18:53:24 +0100 > > > Auger Eric wrote: > > > =20 > > >> Hi Igor, > > >> > > >> On 2/26/19 5:56 PM, Igor Mammedov wrote: =20 > > >>> On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 14:11:58 +0100 > > >>> Auger Eric wrote: > > >>> =20 > > >>>> Hi Igor, > > >>>> > > >>>> On 2/26/19 9:40 AM, Auger Eric wrote: =20 > > >>>>> Hi Igor, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On 2/25/19 10:42 AM, Igor Mammedov wrote: =20 > > >>>>>> On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 18:35:26 +0100 > > >>>>>> Auger Eric wrote: > > >>>>>> =20 > > >>>>>>> Hi Igor, > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On 2/22/19 5:27 PM, Igor Mammedov wrote: =20 > > >>>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 23:39:46 +0100 > > >>>>>>>> Eric Auger wrote: > > >>>>>>>> =20 > > >>>>>>>>> This series aims to bump the 255GB RAM limit in machvirt and = to > > >>>>>>>>> support device memory in general, and especially =20 > > PCDIMM/NVDIMM. =20 > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> In machvirt versions < 4.0, the initial RAM starts at 1GB and= can > > >>>>>>>>> grow up to 255GB. From 256GB onwards we find IO regions such = as =20 > > the =20 > > >>>>>>>>> additional GICv3 RDIST region, high PCIe ECAM region and high= =20 > > PCIe =20 > > >>>>>>>>> MMIO region. The address map was 1TB large. This corresponded= =20 > > to =20 > > >>>>>>>>> the max IPA capacity KVM was able to manage. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Since 4.20, the host kernel is able to support a larger and d= ynamic > > >>>>>>>>> IPA range. So the guest physical address can go beyond the 1T= B. =20 > > The =20 > > >>>>>>>>> max GPA size depends on the host kernel configuration and phy= sical =20 > > CPUs. =20 > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> In this series we use this feature and allow the RAM to grow = =20 > > without =20 > > >>>>>>>>> any other limit than the one put by the host kernel. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> The RAM still starts at 1GB. First comes the initial ram (-m)= of size > > >>>>>>>>> ram_size and then comes the device memory (,maxmem) of size > > >>>>>>>>> maxram_size - ram_size. The device memory is potentially =20 > > hotpluggable =20 > > >>>>>>>>> depending on the instantiated memory objects. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> IO regions previously located between 256GB and 1TB are moved= =20 > > after =20 > > >>>>>>>>> the RAM. Their offset is dynamically computed, depends on =20 > > ram_size =20 > > >>>>>>>>> and maxram_size. Size alignment is enforced. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> In case maxmem value is inferior to 255GB, the legacy memory = =20 > > map =20 > > >>>>>>>>> still is used. The change of memory map becomes effective fro= m 4.0 > > >>>>>>>>> onwards. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> As we keep the initial RAM at 1GB base address, we do not nee= d to =20 > > do =20 > > >>>>>>>>> invasive changes in the EDK2 FW. It seems nobody is eager to = do > > >>>>>>>>> that job at the moment. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Device memory being put just after the initial RAM, it is pos= sible > > >>>>>>>>> to get access to this feature while keeping a 1TB address map. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> This series reuses/rebases patches initially submitted by Sha= meer > > >>>>>>>>> in [1] and Kwangwoo in [2] for the PC-DIMM and NV-DIMM parts. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Functionally, the series is split into 3 parts: > > >>>>>>>>> 1) bump of the initial RAM limit [1 - 9] and change in > > >>>>>>>>> the memory map =20 > > >>>>>>>> =20 > > >>>>>>>>> 2) Support of PC-DIMM [10 - 13] =20 > > >>>>>>>> Is this part complete ACPI wise (for coldplug)? I haven't noti= ced > > >>>>>>>> DSDT AML here no E820 changes, so ACPI wise pc-dimm shouldn't = be > > >>>>>>>> visible to the guest. It might be that DT is masking problem > > >>>>>>>> but well, that won't work on ACPI only guests. =20 > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> guest /proc/meminfo or "lshw -class memory" reflects the amount= of =20 > > mem =20 > > >>>>>>> added with the DIMM slots. =20 > > >>>>>> Question is how does it get there? Does it come from DT or from = =20 > > firmware =20 > > >>>>>> via UEFI interfaces? > > >>>>>> =20 > > >>>>>>> So it looks fine to me. Isn't E820 a pure x86 matter? =20 > > >>>>>> sorry for misleading, I've meant is UEFI GetMemoryMap(). > > >>>>>> On x86, I'm wary of adding PC-DIMMs to E802 which then gets expo= sed > > >>>>>> via UEFI GetMemoryMap() as guest kernel might start using it as = =20 > > normal =20 > > >>>>>> memory early at boot and later put that memory into zone normal = and =20 > > hence =20 > > >>>>>> make it non-hot-un-pluggable. The same concerns apply to DT base= d =20 > > means =20 > > >>>>>> of discovery. > > >>>>>> (That's guest issue but it's easy to workaround it not putting = =20 > > hotpluggable =20 > > >>>>>> memory into UEFI GetMemoryMap() or DT and let DSDT describe it = =20 > > properly) =20 > > >>>>>> That way memory doesn't get (ab)used by firmware or early boot = =20 > > kernel stages =20 > > >>>>>> and doesn't get locked up. > > >>>>>> =20 > > >>>>>>> What else would you expect in the dsdt? =20 > > >>>>>> Memory device descriptions, look for code that adds PNP0C80 with= =20 > > _CRS =20 > > >>>>>> describing memory ranges =20 > > >>>>> > > >>>>> OK thank you for the explanations. I will work on PNP0C80 additio= n then. > > >>>>> Does it mean that in ACPI mode we must not output DT hotplug memo= ry > > >>>>> nodes or assuming that PNP0C80 is properly described, it will "ov= erride" > > >>>>> DT description? =20 > > >>>> > > >>>> After further investigations, I think the pieces you pointed out a= re > > >>>> added by Shameer's series, ie. through the build_memory_hotplug_am= l() > > >>>> call. So I suggest we separate the concerns: this series brings su= pport > > >>>> for DIMM coldplug. hotplug, including all the relevant ACPI struct= ures > > >>>> will be added later on by Shameer. =20 > > >>> > > >>> Maybe we should not put pc-dimms in DT for this series until it get= s clear > > >>> if it doesn't conflict with ACPI in some way. =20 > > >> > > >> I guess you mean removing the DT hotpluggable memory nodes only in A= CPI > > >> mode? Otherwise you simply remove the DIMM feature, right? =20 > > > Something like this so DT won't get in conflict with ACPI. > > > Only we don't have a switch for it something like, -machine fdt=3Don = (with =20 > > default off) =20 > > > =20 > > >> I double checked and if you remove the hotpluggable memory DT nodes = in > > >> ACPI mode: > > >> - you do not see the PCDIMM slots in guest /proc/meminfo anymore. So= I > > >> guess you're right, if the DT nodes are available, that memory is > > >> considered as not unpluggable by the guest. > > >> - You can see the NVDIMM slots using ndctl list -u. You can mount a = DAX > > >> system. > > >> > > >> Hotplug/unplug is clearly not supported by this series and any attem= pt > > >> results in "memory hotplug is not supported". Is it really an issue = if > > >> the guest does not consider DIMM slots as not hot-unpluggable memory= ? I > > >> am not even sure the guest kernel would support to unplug that memor= y. > > >> > > >> In case we want all ACPI tables to be ready for making this memory s= een > > >> as hot-unpluggable we need some Shameer's patches on top of this ser= ies. =20 > > > May be we should push for this way (into 4.0), it's just a several pa= tches > > > after all or even merge them in your series (I'd guess it would need = to be > > > rebased on top of your latest work) =20 > >=20 > > Shameer, would you agree if we merge PATCH 1 of your RFC hotplug series > > (without the reduced hw_reduced_acpi flag) in this series and isolate in > > a second PATCH the acpi_memory_hotplug_init() + build_memory_hotplug_aml > > called in virt code? =20 probably we can do it as transitional step as we need working mmio interface in place for build_memory_hotplug_aml() to work, provided it won't create migration issues (do we need VMSTATE_MEMORY_HOTPLUG for cold-plug case?). What about dummy initial GED (empty device), that manages mmio region only and then later it will be filled with remaining logic IRQ. In this case mmi= o region and vmstate won't change (maybe) so it won't cause ABI or migration issues. > Sure, that=E2=80=99s fine with me. So what would you use for the event_ha= ndler_method in > build_memory_hotplug_aml()? GPO0 device? a method name not defined in spec, so it won't be called might do. >=20 > Thanks, > Shameer >=20 > > Then would remain the GED/GPIO actual integration. > >=20 > > Thanks > >=20 > > Eric =20 > > > =20 > > >> Also don't DIMM slots already make sense in DT mode. Usually we acce= pt > > >> to add one feature in DT and then in ACPI. For instance we can benef= it =20 > > > usually it doesn't conflict with each other (at least I'm not aware o= f it) > > > but I see a problem with in this case. > > > =20 > > >> from nvdimm in dt mode right? So, considering an incremental approac= h I > > >> would be in favour of keeping the DT nodes. =20 > > > I'd guess it is the same as for DIMMs, ACPI support for NVDIMMs is mu= ch > > > more versatile. > > > > > > I consider target application of arm/virt as a board that's used to > > > run in production generic ACPI capable guest in most use cases and > > > various DT only guests as secondary ones. It's hard to make > > > both usecases be happy with defaults (that's probably one of the > > > reasons why 'sbsa' board is being added). > > > > > > So I'd give priority to ACPI based arm/virt versus DT when defaults a= re > > > considered. > > > =20 > > >> Thanks > > >> > > >> Eric =20 > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> =20 > > > =20