From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Chen, Tiejun" Subject: Re: [v7][RFC][PATCH 06/13] hvmloader/ram: check if guest memory is out of reserved device memory maps Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 17:13:16 +0800 Message-ID: <546324AC.1010306@intel.com> References: <1414136077-18599-1-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com> <54574D8F.8060407@intel.com> <54575E2D0200007800044443@mail.emea.novell.com> <545767C4.7070806@intel.com> <5457787002000078000445C7@mail.emea.novell.com> <54576DF7.8060408@intel.com> <545784830200007800044627@mail.emea.novell.com> <54585EAA.20904@intel.com> <545894610200007800044A5B@mail.emea.novell.com> <545992A2.8070309@intel.com> <545A57AD02000078000C1037@mail.emea.novell.com> <545B3F4A.5070808@intel.com> <545B562F02000078000453FB@mail.emea.novell.com> <545C9E97.4040800@intel.com> <545CB64E02000078000459CD@mail.emea.novell.com> <5461AD94.2070008@intel.com> <5461BF97.1070709@intel.com> <5461DED50200007800046520@mail.emea.novell.com> <5461DFAF020000780004652B@mail.emea.novell.com> <5461DA23.6020105@intel.com> <5461EDD702000078000465C3@mail.emea.novell.com> <5462B9AC.6050704@intel.com> <54632A760200007800046ACC@mail.emea.novell.com> <54631E3A.2020909@intel.com> <5463302F0200007800046AF8@mail.emea.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5463302F0200007800046AF8@mail.emea.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: yang.z.zhang@intel.com, kevin.tian@intel.com, tim@xen.org, xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 2014/11/12 17:02, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 12.11.14 at 09:45, wrote: >>>> #2 flags field in each specific device of new domctl would control >>>> whether this device need to check/reserve its own RMRR range. But its >>>> not dependent on current device assignment domctl, so the user can use >>>> them to control which devices need to work as hotplug later, separately. >>> >>> And this could be left as a second step, in order for what needs to >>> be done now to not get more complicated that necessary. >>> >> >> Do you mean currently we still rely on the device assignment domctl to >> provide SBDF? So looks nothing should be changed in our policy. > > I can't connect your question to what I said. What I tried to tell you Something is misunderstanding to me. > was that I don't currently see a need to make this overly complicated: > Having the option to punch holes for all devices and (by default) > dealing with just the devices assigned at boot may be sufficient as a > first step. Yet (repeating just to avoid any misunderstanding) that > makes things easier only if we decide to require device assignment to > happen before memory getting populated (since in that case there's Here what do you mean, 'if we decide to require device assignment to happen before memory getting populated'? Because -quote- " In the present the device assignment is always after memory population. And I also mentioned previously I double checked this sequence with printk. " Or you already plan or deciede to change this sequence? Thanks Tiejun > no need for a new domctl to communicate SBDFs, as devices needing > holes will be known to the hypervisor already). > > Jan > > >