* [v6][PATCH 00/16] Fix RMRR
@ 2015-07-08 10:13 Tiejun Chen
2015-07-08 10:13 ` [v6][PATCH 01/16] xen: introduce XENMEM_reserved_device_memory_map Tiejun Chen
` (15 more replies)
0 siblings, 16 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Tiejun Chen @ 2015-07-08 10:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xen-devel
v6:
* Inside patch #01, add a comments to the nr_entries field inside
xen_reserved_device_memory_map. Note this is from Jan.
* Inside patch #10, we need rename something to make our policy reasonable
"type" -> "strategy"
"none" -> "ignore"
and based on our discussion, we won't expose "ignore" in xl level and just
keep that as a default, and then sync docs and the patch head description
* Inside patch #10, we fix some code stypes and especially we refine
libxl__xc_device_get_rdm()
* Inside patch #16, we need to sync those renames introduced by patch #10.
v5:
* Fold our original patch #2 and #3 as this new, and here
introduce a new, clear_identity_p2m_entry, which can wrapper
guest_physmap_remove_page(). And we use this to clean our
identity mapping.
* Just leave one bit XEN_DOMCTL_DEV_RDM_RELAXED as our policy flag, so
now "0" means "strict" and "1" means "relaxed", and also make DT device
ignore the flag field simply. And then correct all associated code
comments.
* Just make sure the per-device plicy always override the global policy,
and so cleanup some associated comments and the patch head description.
* Improve some descriptions in doc.
* Make all rdm variables specific to .hvm
* Inside patch #6, we're trying to rename that field, is_64bar, inside struct
bars with flag, and then extend to also indicate if this bar is already
allocated.
* Inside patch 11, Rename xc_device_get_rdm() with libxl__xc_device_get_rdm(),
and then replace malloc() with libxl__malloc(), and finally cleanup this fallout.
libxl__xc_device_get_rdm() should return proper libxl error code, ERROR_FAIL.
Then instead, the allocated RDM entries would be returned with an out parameter.
* The original patch #13 is sent out separately since actually this is not related
to RMRR.
v4:
* Change one condition inside patch #2, "xen/x86/p2m: introduce
set_identity_p2m_entry",
if ( p2mt == p2m_invalid || p2mt == p2m_mmio_dm )
to make sure we just catch our requirement.
* Inside patch #3, "xen/vtd: create RMRR mapping",
Instead of intel_iommu_unmap_page(), we should use
guest_physmap_remove_page() to unmap rmrr mapping correctly. And drop
iommu_map_page() since actually ept_set_entry() can do this
internally.
* Inside patch #4, "xen/passthrough: extend hypercall to support rdm
reservation policy", add code comments to describer why we fix to set a
policy flag in some cases like adding a device to hwdomain, and removing
a device from user domain. And fix one judging condition
domctl->u.assign_device.flag == XEN_DOMCTL_DEV_NO_RDM
-> domctl->u.assign_device.flag != XEN_DOMCTL_DEV_NO_RDM
Additionally, also add to range check the flag passed to make future
extensions possible (and to avoid ambiguity on what out of range values
would mean).
* Inside patch #6, "hvmloader: get guest memory map into memory_map[]", we
move some codes related to e820 to that specific file, e820.c, and consolidate
"printf()+BUG()" and "BUG_ON()", and also avoid another fixed width type for
the parameter of get_mem_mapping_layout()
* Inside patch #7, "hvmloader/pci: skip reserved ranges"
We have to re-design this as follows:
#1. Goal
MMIO region should exclude all reserved device memory
#2. Requirements
#2.1 Still need to make sure MMIO region is fit all pci devices as before
#2.2 Accommodate the not aligned reserved memory regions
If I'm missing something let me know.
#3. How to
#3.1 Address #2.1
We need to either of populating more RAM, or of expanding more highmem. But
we should know just 64bit-bar can work with highmem, and as you mentioned we
also should avoid expanding highmem as possible. So my implementation is to
allocate 32bit-bar and 64bit-bar orderly.
1>. The first allocation round just to 32bit-bar
If we can finish allocating all 32bit-bar, we just go to allocate 64bit-bar
with all remaining resources including low pci memory.
If not, we need to calculate how much RAM should be populated to allocate the
remaining 32bit-bars, then populate sufficient RAM as exp_mem_resource to go
to the second allocation round 2>.
2>. The second allocation round to the remaining 32bit-bar
We should can finish allocating all 32bit-bar in theory, then go to the third
allocation round 3>.
3>. The third allocation round to 64bit-bar
We'll try to first allocate from the remaining low memory resource. If that
isn't enough, we try to expand highmem to allocate for 64bit-bar. This process
should be same as the original.
#3.2 Address #2.2
I'm trying to accommodate the not aligned reserved memory regions:
We should skip all reserved device memory, but we also need to check if other
smaller bars can be allocated if a mmio hole exists between resource->base and
reserved device memory. If a hole exists between base and reserved device
memory, lets go out simply to try allocate for next bar since all bars are in
descending order of size. If not, we need to move resource->base to reserved_end
just to reallocate this bar
* Inside of patch #8, "hvmloader/e820: construct guest e820 table", we need to
adjust highmme if lowmem is changed such as hvmloader has to populate more
RAM to allocate bars.
* Inside of patch #11, "tools: introduce some new parameters to set rdm policy",
we don't define init_val for for libxl_rdm_reserve_type since its just zero,
and grab those changes to xl/libxlu to as a final patch.
* Inside of patch #12, "passes rdm reservation policy", fix one typo,
s/unkwon/unknown. And in command description, we should use "[]" to indicate
it's optional for that extended xl command, pci-attach.
* Patch #13 is separated from current patch #14 since this is specific to xc.
* Inside of patch #14, "tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM", and
just unconditionally set *nr_entries to 0. And additionally, we grab to all
stuffs to provide a parameter to set our predefined boundary dynamically to as
a separated patch later
* Inside of patch #16, "tools/libxl: extend XENMEM_set_memory_map", we use
goto style error handling, and instead of NOGC, we shoud use
libxl__malloc(gc,XXX) to allocate local e820.
Overall, we refined several the patch head descriptions and code comments.
v3:
* Rearrange all patches orderly as Wei suggested
* Rebase on the latest tree
* Address some Wei's comments on tools side
* Two changes for runtime cycle
patch #2,xen/x86/p2m: introduce set_identity_p2m_entry, on hypervisor side
a>. Introduce paging_mode_translate()
Otherwise, we'll see this error when boot Xen/Dom0
(XEN) Assertion 'paging_mode_translate(p2m->domain)' failed at p2m-pt.c:702
(XEN) ----[ Xen-4.6-unstable x86_64 debug=y Tainted: C ]----
....
(XEN) Xen call trace:
(XEN) [<ffff82d0801f53db>] p2m_pt_get_entry+0x29/0x558
(XEN) [<ffff82d0801f0b5c>] set_identity_p2m_entry+0xfc/0x1f0
(XEN) [<ffff82d08014ebc8>] rmrr_identity_mapping+0x154/0x1ce
(XEN) [<ffff82d0802abb46>] intel_iommu_hwdom_init+0x76/0x158
(XEN) [<ffff82d0802ab169>] iommu_hwdom_init+0x179/0x188
(XEN) [<ffff82d0802cc608>] construct_dom0+0x2fed/0x35d8
(XEN) [<ffff82d0802bdaa0>] __start_xen+0x22d8/0x2381
(XEN) [<ffff82d080100067>] __high_start+0x53/0x55
(XEN)
(XEN)
(XEN) ****************************************
(XEN) Panic on CPU 0:
(XEN) Assertion 'paging_mode_translate(p2m->domain)' failed at p2m-pt.c:702
Note I don't copy all info since I think the above is enough.
b>. Actually we still need to use "mfn_x(mfn) == INVALID_MFN" to confirm
we're getting an invalid mfn.
* Add patch #16 to handle those devices which share same RMRR.
v2:
* Instead of that fixed predefined rdm memory boundary, we'd like to
introduce a parameter, "rdm_mem_boundary", to set this threshold value.
* Remove that existing USB hack.
* Make sure the MMIO regions all fit in the available resource window
* Rename our policy, "force/try" -> "strict/relaxed"
* Indeed, Wei and Jan gave me more and more comments to refine codes
* Code style
* Better and reasonable code implementation
* Correct or improve code comments.
* A little bit to work well with ARM.
Open:
* We should fail assigning device which has a shared RMRR with
another device. We can only do group assignment when RMRR is shared
among devices.
We need more time to figure a good policy/way out because something
is not clear to me.
As you know all devices are owned by Dom0 firstly before we create any
DomU, right? Do we allow Dom0 still own a group device while assign another
device in the same group?
Really appreciate any comments to policy.
v1:
RMRR is an acronym for Reserved Memory Region Reporting, expected to
be used for legacy usages (such as USB, UMA Graphics, etc.) requiring
reserved memory. Special treatment is required in system software to
setup those reserved regions in IOMMU translation structures, otherwise
passing through a device with RMRR reported may not work correctly.
This patch set tries to enhance existing Xen RMRR implementation to fix
various reported and theoretical problems. Most noteworthy changes are
to setup identity mapping in p2m layer and handle possible conflicts between
reported regions and gfn space. Initial proposal can be found at:
http://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2015-01/msg00524.html
and after a long discussion a summarized agreement is here:
http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2015-01/msg01580.html
Below is a key summary of this patch set according to agreed proposal:
1. Use RDM (Reserved Device Memory) name in user space as a general
description instead of using ACPI RMRR name directly.
2. Introduce configuration parameters to allow user control both per-device
and global RDM resources along with desired policies upon a detected conflict.
3. Introduce a new hypercall to query global and per-device RDM resources.
4. Extend libxl to be a central place to manage RDM resources and handle
potential conflicts between reserved regions and gfn space. One simplification
goal is made to keep existing lowmem / mmio / highmem layout which is
passed around various function blocks. So a reasonable assumption
is made, that conflicts falling into below areas are not re-arranged otherwise
it will result in a more scattered layout:
a) in highmem region (>4G)
b) in lowmem region, and below a predefined boundary (default 2G)
a) is a new assumption not discussed before. From VT-d spec this is
possible but no such observation in real-world. So we can make this
reasonable assumption until there's real usage on it.
5. Extend XENMEM_set_memory_map usable for HVM guest, and then have
libxl to use that hypercall to carry RDM information to hvmloader. There
is one difference from original discussion. Previously we discussed to
introduce a new E820 type specifically for RDM entries. After more thought
we think it's OK to just tag them as E820_reserved. Actually hvmloader
doesn't need to know whether the reserved entries come from RDM or
from other purposes.
6. Then in hvmloader the change is generic for XENMEM_memory_map
change. Given a predefined memory layout, hvmloader should avoid
allocating all reserved entries for other usages (opregion, mmio, etc.)
7. Extend existing device passthrough hypercall to carry conflict handling
policy.
8. Setup identity map in p2m layer for RMRRs reported for the given
device. And conflicts are handled according to specified policy in hypercall.
Current patch set contains core enhancements calling for comments.
There are still several tasks not implemented now. We'll include them
in final version after RFC is agreed:
- remove existing USB hack
- detect and fail assigning device which has a shared RMRR with another device
- add a config parameter to configure that memory boundary flexibly
- In the case of hotplug we also need to figure out a way to fix that policy
conflict between the per-pci policy and the global policy but firstly we think
we'd better collect some good or correct ideas to step next in RFC.
So here I made this as RFC to collect your any comments.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jan Beulich (1):
xen: introduce XENMEM_reserved_device_memory_map
Tiejun Chen (15):
xen/vtd: create RMRR mapping
xen/passthrough: extend hypercall to support rdm reservation policy
xen: enable XENMEM_memory_map in hvm
hvmloader: get guest memory map into memory_map[]
hvmloader/pci: skip reserved ranges
hvmloader/e820: construct guest e820 table
tools/libxc: Expose new hypercall xc_reserved_device_memory_map
tools: extend xc_assign_device() to support rdm reservation policy
tools: introduce some new parameters to set rdm policy
tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM
tools: introduce a new parameter to set a predefined rdm boundary
libxl: construct e820 map with RDM information for HVM guest
xen/vtd: enable USB device assignment
xen/vtd: prevent from assign the device with shared rmrr
tools: parse to enable new rdm policy parameters
Jan Beulich (1):
xen: introduce XENMEM_reserved_device_memory_map
docs/man/xl.cfg.pod.5 | 103 ++++++++
docs/misc/vtd.txt | 24 ++
tools/firmware/hvmloader/e820.c | 115 +++++++--
tools/firmware/hvmloader/e820.h | 7 +
tools/firmware/hvmloader/hvmloader.c | 2 +
tools/firmware/hvmloader/pci.c | 194 +++++++++++---
tools/firmware/hvmloader/util.c | 26 ++
tools/firmware/hvmloader/util.h | 12 +
tools/libxc/include/xenctrl.h | 11 +-
tools/libxc/xc_domain.c | 45 +++-
tools/libxl/libxl.h | 6 +
tools/libxl/libxl_create.c | 13 +-
tools/libxl/libxl_dm.c | 264 ++++++++++++++++++++
tools/libxl/libxl_dom.c | 16 +-
tools/libxl/libxl_internal.h | 37 ++-
tools/libxl/libxl_pci.c | 12 +-
tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl | 26 ++
tools/libxl/libxl_x86.c | 83 ++++++
tools/libxl/libxlu_pci.c | 90 +++++++
tools/libxl/libxlutil.h | 4 +
tools/libxl/xl_cmdimpl.c | 16 ++
tools/ocaml/libs/xc/xenctrl_stubs.c | 16 +-
tools/python/xen/lowlevel/xc/xc.c | 30 ++-
xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c | 2 -
xen/arch/x86/mm.c | 6 -
xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c | 43 +++-
xen/common/compat/memory.c | 66 +++++
xen/common/memory.c | 64 +++++
xen/drivers/passthrough/amd/pci_amd_iommu.c | 3 +-
xen/drivers/passthrough/arm/smmu.c | 2 +-
xen/drivers/passthrough/device_tree.c | 3 +-
xen/drivers/passthrough/iommu.c | 10 +
xen/drivers/passthrough/pci.c | 15 +-
xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/dmar.c | 32 +++
xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/dmar.h | 1 -
xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/extern.h | 1 +
xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c | 87 +++++--
xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/utils.c | 7 -
xen/include/asm-x86/p2m.h | 13 +-
xen/include/public/domctl.h | 3 +
xen/include/public/memory.h | 37 ++-
xen/include/xen/iommu.h | 12 +-
xen/include/xen/pci.h | 2 +
xen/include/xlat.lst | 3 +-
44 files changed, 1447 insertions(+), 117 deletions(-)
Thanks
Tiejun
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [v6][PATCH 01/16] xen: introduce XENMEM_reserved_device_memory_map
2015-07-08 10:13 [v6][PATCH 00/16] Fix RMRR Tiejun Chen
@ 2015-07-08 10:13 ` Tiejun Chen
2015-07-08 10:13 ` [v6][PATCH 02/16] xen/vtd: create RMRR mapping Tiejun Chen
` (14 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Tiejun Chen @ 2015-07-08 10:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xen-devel; +Cc: Yang Zhang, Kevin Tian, Jan Beulich
From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
This is a prerequisite for punching holes into HVM and PVH guests' P2M
to allow passing through devices that are associated with (on VT-d)
RMRRs.
CC: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
CC: Yang Zhang <yang.z.zhang@intel.com>
CC: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
Acked-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
---
v6:
* Add a comments to the nr_entries field inside xen_reserved_device_memory_map
v5:
* Nothing is changed.
v4:
* Nothing is changed.
xen/common/compat/memory.c | 66 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
xen/common/memory.c | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
xen/drivers/passthrough/iommu.c | 10 ++++++
xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/dmar.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++
xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/extern.h | 1 +
xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c | 1 +
xen/include/public/memory.h | 37 +++++++++++++++++++-
xen/include/xen/iommu.h | 10 ++++++
xen/include/xen/pci.h | 2 ++
xen/include/xlat.lst | 3 +-
10 files changed, 224 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/xen/common/compat/memory.c b/xen/common/compat/memory.c
index b258138..b608496 100644
--- a/xen/common/compat/memory.c
+++ b/xen/common/compat/memory.c
@@ -17,6 +17,45 @@ CHECK_TYPE(domid);
CHECK_mem_access_op;
CHECK_vmemrange;
+#ifdef HAS_PASSTHROUGH
+struct get_reserved_device_memory {
+ struct compat_reserved_device_memory_map map;
+ unsigned int used_entries;
+};
+
+static int get_reserved_device_memory(xen_pfn_t start, xen_ulong_t nr,
+ u32 id, void *ctxt)
+{
+ struct get_reserved_device_memory *grdm = ctxt;
+ u32 sbdf;
+ struct compat_reserved_device_memory rdm = {
+ .start_pfn = start, .nr_pages = nr
+ };
+
+ sbdf = PCI_SBDF2(grdm->map.seg, grdm->map.bus, grdm->map.devfn);
+ if ( (grdm->map.flag & PCI_DEV_RDM_ALL) || (sbdf == id) )
+ {
+ if ( grdm->used_entries < grdm->map.nr_entries )
+ {
+ if ( rdm.start_pfn != start || rdm.nr_pages != nr )
+ return -ERANGE;
+
+ if ( __copy_to_compat_offset(grdm->map.buffer,
+ grdm->used_entries,
+ &rdm,
+ 1) )
+ {
+ return -EFAULT;
+ }
+ }
+ ++grdm->used_entries;
+ return 1;
+ }
+
+ return 0;
+}
+#endif
+
int compat_memory_op(unsigned int cmd, XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) compat)
{
int split, op = cmd & MEMOP_CMD_MASK;
@@ -303,6 +342,33 @@ int compat_memory_op(unsigned int cmd, XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) compat)
break;
}
+#ifdef HAS_PASSTHROUGH
+ case XENMEM_reserved_device_memory_map:
+ {
+ struct get_reserved_device_memory grdm;
+
+ if ( copy_from_guest(&grdm.map, compat, 1) ||
+ !compat_handle_okay(grdm.map.buffer, grdm.map.nr_entries) )
+ return -EFAULT;
+
+ grdm.used_entries = 0;
+ rc = iommu_get_reserved_device_memory(get_reserved_device_memory,
+ &grdm);
+
+ if ( !rc && grdm.map.nr_entries < grdm.used_entries )
+ rc = -ENOBUFS;
+
+ grdm.map.nr_entries = grdm.used_entries;
+ if ( grdm.map.nr_entries )
+ {
+ if ( __copy_to_guest(compat, &grdm.map, 1) )
+ rc = -EFAULT;
+ }
+
+ return rc;
+ }
+#endif
+
default:
return compat_arch_memory_op(cmd, compat);
}
diff --git a/xen/common/memory.c b/xen/common/memory.c
index c84fcdd..7b6281b 100644
--- a/xen/common/memory.c
+++ b/xen/common/memory.c
@@ -748,6 +748,43 @@ static int construct_memop_from_reservation(
return 0;
}
+#ifdef HAS_PASSTHROUGH
+struct get_reserved_device_memory {
+ struct xen_reserved_device_memory_map map;
+ unsigned int used_entries;
+};
+
+static int get_reserved_device_memory(xen_pfn_t start, xen_ulong_t nr,
+ u32 id, void *ctxt)
+{
+ struct get_reserved_device_memory *grdm = ctxt;
+ u32 sbdf;
+
+ sbdf = PCI_SBDF2(grdm->map.seg, grdm->map.bus, grdm->map.devfn);
+ if ( (grdm->map.flag & PCI_DEV_RDM_ALL) || (sbdf == id) )
+ {
+ if ( grdm->used_entries < grdm->map.nr_entries )
+ {
+ struct xen_reserved_device_memory rdm = {
+ .start_pfn = start, .nr_pages = nr
+ };
+
+ if ( __copy_to_guest_offset(grdm->map.buffer,
+ grdm->used_entries,
+ &rdm,
+ 1) )
+ {
+ return -EFAULT;
+ }
+ }
+ ++grdm->used_entries;
+ return 1;
+ }
+
+ return 0;
+}
+#endif
+
long do_memory_op(unsigned long cmd, XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) arg)
{
struct domain *d;
@@ -1162,6 +1199,33 @@ long do_memory_op(unsigned long cmd, XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) arg)
break;
}
+#ifdef HAS_PASSTHROUGH
+ case XENMEM_reserved_device_memory_map:
+ {
+ struct get_reserved_device_memory grdm;
+
+ if ( copy_from_guest(&grdm.map, arg, 1) ||
+ !guest_handle_okay(grdm.map.buffer, grdm.map.nr_entries) )
+ return -EFAULT;
+
+ grdm.used_entries = 0;
+ rc = iommu_get_reserved_device_memory(get_reserved_device_memory,
+ &grdm);
+
+ if ( !rc && grdm.map.nr_entries < grdm.used_entries )
+ rc = -ENOBUFS;
+
+ grdm.map.nr_entries = grdm.used_entries;
+ if ( grdm.map.nr_entries )
+ {
+ if ( __copy_to_guest(arg, &grdm.map, 1) )
+ rc = -EFAULT;
+ }
+
+ break;
+ }
+#endif
+
default:
rc = arch_memory_op(cmd, arg);
break;
diff --git a/xen/drivers/passthrough/iommu.c b/xen/drivers/passthrough/iommu.c
index 06cb38f..0b2ef52 100644
--- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/iommu.c
+++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/iommu.c
@@ -375,6 +375,16 @@ void iommu_crash_shutdown(void)
iommu_enabled = iommu_intremap = 0;
}
+int iommu_get_reserved_device_memory(iommu_grdm_t *func, void *ctxt)
+{
+ const struct iommu_ops *ops = iommu_get_ops();
+
+ if ( !iommu_enabled || !ops->get_reserved_device_memory )
+ return 0;
+
+ return ops->get_reserved_device_memory(func, ctxt);
+}
+
bool_t iommu_has_feature(struct domain *d, enum iommu_feature feature)
{
const struct hvm_iommu *hd = domain_hvm_iommu(d);
diff --git a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/dmar.c b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/dmar.c
index 2b07be9..a730de5 100644
--- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/dmar.c
+++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/dmar.c
@@ -893,3 +893,35 @@ int platform_supports_x2apic(void)
unsigned int mask = ACPI_DMAR_INTR_REMAP | ACPI_DMAR_X2APIC_OPT_OUT;
return cpu_has_x2apic && ((dmar_flags & mask) == ACPI_DMAR_INTR_REMAP);
}
+
+int intel_iommu_get_reserved_device_memory(iommu_grdm_t *func, void *ctxt)
+{
+ struct acpi_rmrr_unit *rmrr, *rmrr_cur = NULL;
+ int rc = 0;
+ unsigned int i;
+ u16 bdf;
+
+ for_each_rmrr_device ( rmrr, bdf, i )
+ {
+ if ( rmrr != rmrr_cur )
+ {
+ rc = func(PFN_DOWN(rmrr->base_address),
+ PFN_UP(rmrr->end_address) -
+ PFN_DOWN(rmrr->base_address),
+ PCI_SBDF(rmrr->segment, bdf),
+ ctxt);
+
+ if ( unlikely(rc < 0) )
+ return rc;
+
+ if ( !rc )
+ continue;
+
+ /* Just go next. */
+ if ( rc == 1 )
+ rmrr_cur = rmrr;
+ }
+ }
+
+ return 0;
+}
diff --git a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/extern.h b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/extern.h
index 5524dba..f9ee9b0 100644
--- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/extern.h
+++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/extern.h
@@ -75,6 +75,7 @@ int domain_context_mapping_one(struct domain *domain, struct iommu *iommu,
u8 bus, u8 devfn, const struct pci_dev *);
int domain_context_unmap_one(struct domain *domain, struct iommu *iommu,
u8 bus, u8 devfn);
+int intel_iommu_get_reserved_device_memory(iommu_grdm_t *func, void *ctxt);
unsigned int io_apic_read_remap_rte(unsigned int apic, unsigned int reg);
void io_apic_write_remap_rte(unsigned int apic,
diff --git a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
index 48820ea..44ed23d 100644
--- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
+++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
@@ -2491,6 +2491,7 @@ const struct iommu_ops intel_iommu_ops = {
.crash_shutdown = vtd_crash_shutdown,
.iotlb_flush = intel_iommu_iotlb_flush,
.iotlb_flush_all = intel_iommu_iotlb_flush_all,
+ .get_reserved_device_memory = intel_iommu_get_reserved_device_memory,
.dump_p2m_table = vtd_dump_p2m_table,
};
diff --git a/xen/include/public/memory.h b/xen/include/public/memory.h
index 832559a..ac7d3da 100644
--- a/xen/include/public/memory.h
+++ b/xen/include/public/memory.h
@@ -573,7 +573,42 @@ struct xen_vnuma_topology_info {
typedef struct xen_vnuma_topology_info xen_vnuma_topology_info_t;
DEFINE_XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(xen_vnuma_topology_info_t);
-/* Next available subop number is 27 */
+/*
+ * With some legacy devices, certain guest-physical addresses cannot safely
+ * be used for other purposes, e.g. to map guest RAM. This hypercall
+ * enumerates those regions so the toolstack can avoid using them.
+ */
+#define XENMEM_reserved_device_memory_map 27
+struct xen_reserved_device_memory {
+ xen_pfn_t start_pfn;
+ xen_ulong_t nr_pages;
+};
+typedef struct xen_reserved_device_memory xen_reserved_device_memory_t;
+DEFINE_XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(xen_reserved_device_memory_t);
+
+struct xen_reserved_device_memory_map {
+ /* IN */
+ /* Currently just one bit to indicate checkng all Reserved Device Memory. */
+#define PCI_DEV_RDM_ALL 0x1
+ uint32_t flag;
+ /* IN */
+ uint16_t seg;
+ uint8_t bus;
+ uint8_t devfn;
+ /*
+ * IN/OUT
+ *
+ * Gets set to the required number of entries when too low,
+ * signaled by error code -ERANGE.
+ */
+ unsigned int nr_entries;
+ /* OUT */
+ XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(xen_reserved_device_memory_t) buffer;
+};
+typedef struct xen_reserved_device_memory_map xen_reserved_device_memory_map_t;
+DEFINE_XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(xen_reserved_device_memory_map_t);
+
+/* Next available subop number is 28 */
#endif /* __XEN_PUBLIC_MEMORY_H__ */
diff --git a/xen/include/xen/iommu.h b/xen/include/xen/iommu.h
index b30bf41..e2f584d 100644
--- a/xen/include/xen/iommu.h
+++ b/xen/include/xen/iommu.h
@@ -126,6 +126,14 @@ int iommu_do_dt_domctl(struct xen_domctl *, struct domain *,
struct page_info;
+/*
+ * Any non-zero value returned from callbacks of this type will cause the
+ * function the callback was handed to terminate its iteration. Assigning
+ * meaning of these non-zero values is left to the top level caller /
+ * callback pair.
+ */
+typedef int iommu_grdm_t(xen_pfn_t start, xen_ulong_t nr, u32 id, void *ctxt);
+
struct iommu_ops {
int (*init)(struct domain *d);
void (*hwdom_init)(struct domain *d);
@@ -157,12 +165,14 @@ struct iommu_ops {
void (*crash_shutdown)(void);
void (*iotlb_flush)(struct domain *d, unsigned long gfn, unsigned int page_count);
void (*iotlb_flush_all)(struct domain *d);
+ int (*get_reserved_device_memory)(iommu_grdm_t *, void *);
void (*dump_p2m_table)(struct domain *d);
};
void iommu_suspend(void);
void iommu_resume(void);
void iommu_crash_shutdown(void);
+int iommu_get_reserved_device_memory(iommu_grdm_t *, void *);
void iommu_share_p2m_table(struct domain *d);
diff --git a/xen/include/xen/pci.h b/xen/include/xen/pci.h
index 3908146..d176e8b 100644
--- a/xen/include/xen/pci.h
+++ b/xen/include/xen/pci.h
@@ -33,6 +33,8 @@
#define PCI_DEVFN2(bdf) ((bdf) & 0xff)
#define PCI_BDF(b,d,f) ((((b) & 0xff) << 8) | PCI_DEVFN(d,f))
#define PCI_BDF2(b,df) ((((b) & 0xff) << 8) | ((df) & 0xff))
+#define PCI_SBDF(s,bdf) (((s & 0xffff) << 16) | (bdf & 0xffff))
+#define PCI_SBDF2(s,b,df) (((s & 0xffff) << 16) | PCI_BDF2(b,df))
struct pci_dev_info {
bool_t is_extfn;
diff --git a/xen/include/xlat.lst b/xen/include/xlat.lst
index 9c9fd9a..dd23559 100644
--- a/xen/include/xlat.lst
+++ b/xen/include/xlat.lst
@@ -61,9 +61,10 @@
! memory_exchange memory.h
! memory_map memory.h
! memory_reservation memory.h
-? mem_access_op memory.h
+? mem_access_op memory.h
! pod_target memory.h
! remove_from_physmap memory.h
+! reserved_device_memory_map memory.h
? vmemrange memory.h
! vnuma_topology_info memory.h
? physdev_eoi physdev.h
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [v6][PATCH 02/16] xen/vtd: create RMRR mapping
2015-07-08 10:13 [v6][PATCH 00/16] Fix RMRR Tiejun Chen
2015-07-08 10:13 ` [v6][PATCH 01/16] xen: introduce XENMEM_reserved_device_memory_map Tiejun Chen
@ 2015-07-08 10:13 ` Tiejun Chen
2015-07-08 10:13 ` [v6][PATCH 03/16] xen/passthrough: extend hypercall to support rdm reservation policy Tiejun Chen
` (13 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Tiejun Chen @ 2015-07-08 10:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xen-devel
Cc: Kevin Tian, Keir Fraser, Andrew Cooper, Tim Deegan, Jan Beulich,
Yang Zhang
RMRR reserved regions must be setup in the pfn space with an identity
mapping to reported mfn. However existing code has problem to setup
correct mapping when VT-d shares EPT page table, so lead to problem
when assigning devices (e.g GPU) with RMRR reported. So instead, this
patch aims to setup identity mapping in p2m layer, regardless of
whether EPT is shared or not. And we still keep creating VT-d table.
And we also need to introduce a pair of helper to create/clear this
sort of identity mapping as follows:
set_identity_p2m_entry():
If the gfn space is unoccupied, we just set the mapping. If space
is already occupied by desired identity mapping, do nothing.
Otherwise, failure is returned.
clear_identity_p2m_entry():
We just define macro to wrapper guest_physmap_remove_page() with
a returning value as necessary.
CC: Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>
CC: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
CC: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
CC: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
CC: Yang Zhang <yang.z.zhang@intel.com>
CC: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>
Acked-by: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
---
v6:
* Nothing is changed.
v5:
* Fold our original patch #2 and #3 as this new
* Introduce a new, clear_identity_p2m_entry, which can wrapper
guest_physmap_remove_page(). And we use this to clean our
identity mapping.
v4:
* Change that orginal condition,
if ( p2mt == p2m_invalid || p2mt == p2m_mmio_dm )
to make sure we catch those invalid mfn mapping as we expected.
* To have
if ( !paging_mode_translate(p2m->domain) )
return 0;
at the start, instead of indenting the whole body of the function
in an inner scope.
* extend guest_physmap_remove_page() to return a value as a proper
unmapping helper
* Instead of intel_iommu_unmap_page(), we should use
guest_physmap_remove_page() to unmap rmrr mapping correctly.
* Drop iommu_map_page() since actually ept_set_entry() can do this
internally.
xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c | 5 ++---
xen/include/asm-x86/p2m.h | 13 +++++++++---
3 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c
index 6b39733..99a26ca 100644
--- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c
@@ -584,14 +584,16 @@ p2m_remove_page(struct p2m_domain *p2m, unsigned long gfn, unsigned long mfn,
p2m->default_access);
}
-void
+int
guest_physmap_remove_page(struct domain *d, unsigned long gfn,
unsigned long mfn, unsigned int page_order)
{
struct p2m_domain *p2m = p2m_get_hostp2m(d);
+ int rc;
gfn_lock(p2m, gfn, page_order);
- p2m_remove_page(p2m, gfn, mfn, page_order);
+ rc = p2m_remove_page(p2m, gfn, mfn, page_order);
gfn_unlock(p2m, gfn, page_order);
+ return rc;
}
int
@@ -898,6 +900,40 @@ int set_mmio_p2m_entry(struct domain *d, unsigned long gfn, mfn_t mfn,
return set_typed_p2m_entry(d, gfn, mfn, p2m_mmio_direct, access);
}
+int set_identity_p2m_entry(struct domain *d, unsigned long gfn,
+ p2m_access_t p2ma)
+{
+ p2m_type_t p2mt;
+ p2m_access_t a;
+ mfn_t mfn;
+ struct p2m_domain *p2m = p2m_get_hostp2m(d);
+ int ret;
+
+ if ( !paging_mode_translate(p2m->domain) )
+ return 0;
+
+ gfn_lock(p2m, gfn, 0);
+
+ mfn = p2m->get_entry(p2m, gfn, &p2mt, &a, 0, NULL);
+
+ if ( p2mt == p2m_invalid || p2mt == p2m_mmio_dm )
+ ret = p2m_set_entry(p2m, gfn, _mfn(gfn), PAGE_ORDER_4K,
+ p2m_mmio_direct, p2ma);
+ else if ( mfn_x(mfn) == gfn && p2mt == p2m_mmio_direct && a == p2ma )
+ ret = 0;
+ else
+ {
+ ret = -EBUSY;
+ printk(XENLOG_G_WARNING
+ "Cannot setup identity map d%d:%lx,"
+ " gfn already mapped to %lx.\n",
+ d->domain_id, gfn, mfn_x(mfn));
+ }
+
+ gfn_unlock(p2m, gfn, 0);
+ return ret;
+}
+
/* Returns: 0 for success, -errno for failure */
int clear_mmio_p2m_entry(struct domain *d, unsigned long gfn, mfn_t mfn)
{
diff --git a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
index 44ed23d..8415958 100644
--- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
+++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
@@ -1839,7 +1839,7 @@ static int rmrr_identity_mapping(struct domain *d, bool_t map,
while ( base_pfn < end_pfn )
{
- if ( intel_iommu_unmap_page(d, base_pfn) )
+ if ( clear_identity_p2m_entry(d, base_pfn, 0) )
ret = -ENXIO;
base_pfn++;
}
@@ -1855,8 +1855,7 @@ static int rmrr_identity_mapping(struct domain *d, bool_t map,
while ( base_pfn < end_pfn )
{
- int err = intel_iommu_map_page(d, base_pfn, base_pfn,
- IOMMUF_readable|IOMMUF_writable);
+ int err = set_identity_p2m_entry(d, base_pfn, p2m_access_rw);
if ( err )
return err;
diff --git a/xen/include/asm-x86/p2m.h b/xen/include/asm-x86/p2m.h
index b49c09b..190a286 100644
--- a/xen/include/asm-x86/p2m.h
+++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/p2m.h
@@ -503,9 +503,9 @@ static inline int guest_physmap_add_page(struct domain *d,
}
/* Remove a page from a domain's p2m table */
-void guest_physmap_remove_page(struct domain *d,
- unsigned long gfn,
- unsigned long mfn, unsigned int page_order);
+int guest_physmap_remove_page(struct domain *d,
+ unsigned long gfn,
+ unsigned long mfn, unsigned int page_order);
/* Set a p2m range as populate-on-demand */
int guest_physmap_mark_populate_on_demand(struct domain *d, unsigned long gfn,
@@ -543,6 +543,13 @@ int set_mmio_p2m_entry(struct domain *d, unsigned long gfn, mfn_t mfn,
p2m_access_t access);
int clear_mmio_p2m_entry(struct domain *d, unsigned long gfn, mfn_t mfn);
+/* Set identity addresses in the p2m table (for pass-through) */
+int set_identity_p2m_entry(struct domain *d, unsigned long gfn,
+ p2m_access_t p2ma);
+
+#define clear_identity_p2m_entry(d, gfn, page_order) \
+ guest_physmap_remove_page(d, gfn, gfn, page_order)
+
/* Add foreign mapping to the guest's p2m table. */
int p2m_add_foreign(struct domain *tdom, unsigned long fgfn,
unsigned long gpfn, domid_t foreign_domid);
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [v6][PATCH 03/16] xen/passthrough: extend hypercall to support rdm reservation policy
2015-07-08 10:13 [v6][PATCH 00/16] Fix RMRR Tiejun Chen
2015-07-08 10:13 ` [v6][PATCH 01/16] xen: introduce XENMEM_reserved_device_memory_map Tiejun Chen
2015-07-08 10:13 ` [v6][PATCH 02/16] xen/vtd: create RMRR mapping Tiejun Chen
@ 2015-07-08 10:13 ` Tiejun Chen
2015-07-08 10:13 ` [v6][PATCH 04/16] xen: enable XENMEM_memory_map in hvm Tiejun Chen
` (12 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Tiejun Chen @ 2015-07-08 10:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xen-devel
Cc: Kevin Tian, Keir Fraser, Jan Beulich, Andrew Cooper, Tim Deegan,
Aravind Gopalakrishnan, Suravee Suthikulpanit, Yang Zhang,
Stefano Stabellini, Ian Campbell
This patch extends the existing hypercall to support rdm reservation policy.
We return error or just throw out a warning message depending on whether
the policy is "strict" or "relaxed" when reserving RDM regions in pfn space.
Note in some special cases, e.g. add a device to hwdomain, and remove a
device from user domain, 'relaxed' is fine enough since this is always safe
to hwdomain.
CC: Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>
CC: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
CC: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
CC: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
CC: Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>
CC: Aravind Gopalakrishnan <Aravind.Gopalakrishnan@amd.com>
CC: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
CC: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@citrix.com>
CC: Yang Zhang <yang.z.zhang@intel.com>
CC: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
---
v6:
* Nothing is changed.
v5:
* Just leave one bit XEN_DOMCTL_DEV_RDM_RELAXED as our flag, so
"0" means "strict" and "1" means "relaxed".
* So make DT device ignore the flag field
* Improve the code comments
v4:
* Add code comments to describer why we fix to set a policy flag in some
cases like adding a device to hwdomain, and removing a device from user domain.
* Avoid using fixed width types for the parameter of set_identity_p2m_entry()
* Fix one judging condition
domctl->u.assign_device.flag == XEN_DOMCTL_DEV_NO_RDM
-> domctl->u.assign_device.flag != XEN_DOMCTL_DEV_NO_RDM
* Add to range check the flag passed to make future extensions possible
(and to avoid ambiguity on what out of range values would mean).
xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c | 7 +++--
xen/drivers/passthrough/amd/pci_amd_iommu.c | 3 ++-
xen/drivers/passthrough/arm/smmu.c | 2 +-
xen/drivers/passthrough/device_tree.c | 3 ++-
xen/drivers/passthrough/pci.c | 15 ++++++++---
xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++------
xen/include/asm-x86/p2m.h | 2 +-
xen/include/public/domctl.h | 3 +++
xen/include/xen/iommu.h | 2 +-
9 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c
index 99a26ca..47785dc 100644
--- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c
@@ -901,7 +901,7 @@ int set_mmio_p2m_entry(struct domain *d, unsigned long gfn, mfn_t mfn,
}
int set_identity_p2m_entry(struct domain *d, unsigned long gfn,
- p2m_access_t p2ma)
+ p2m_access_t p2ma, unsigned int flag)
{
p2m_type_t p2mt;
p2m_access_t a;
@@ -923,7 +923,10 @@ int set_identity_p2m_entry(struct domain *d, unsigned long gfn,
ret = 0;
else
{
- ret = -EBUSY;
+ if ( flag & XEN_DOMCTL_DEV_RDM_RELAXED )
+ ret = 0;
+ else
+ ret = -EBUSY;
printk(XENLOG_G_WARNING
"Cannot setup identity map d%d:%lx,"
" gfn already mapped to %lx.\n",
diff --git a/xen/drivers/passthrough/amd/pci_amd_iommu.c b/xen/drivers/passthrough/amd/pci_amd_iommu.c
index e83bb35..920b35a 100644
--- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/amd/pci_amd_iommu.c
+++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/amd/pci_amd_iommu.c
@@ -394,7 +394,8 @@ static int reassign_device(struct domain *source, struct domain *target,
}
static int amd_iommu_assign_device(struct domain *d, u8 devfn,
- struct pci_dev *pdev)
+ struct pci_dev *pdev,
+ u32 flag)
{
struct ivrs_mappings *ivrs_mappings = get_ivrs_mappings(pdev->seg);
int bdf = PCI_BDF2(pdev->bus, devfn);
diff --git a/xen/drivers/passthrough/arm/smmu.c b/xen/drivers/passthrough/arm/smmu.c
index 6cc4394..9a667e9 100644
--- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/arm/smmu.c
+++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/arm/smmu.c
@@ -2605,7 +2605,7 @@ static void arm_smmu_destroy_iommu_domain(struct iommu_domain *domain)
}
static int arm_smmu_assign_dev(struct domain *d, u8 devfn,
- struct device *dev)
+ struct device *dev, u32 flag)
{
struct iommu_domain *domain;
struct arm_smmu_xen_domain *xen_domain;
diff --git a/xen/drivers/passthrough/device_tree.c b/xen/drivers/passthrough/device_tree.c
index 5d3842a..7ff79f8 100644
--- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/device_tree.c
+++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/device_tree.c
@@ -52,7 +52,8 @@ int iommu_assign_dt_device(struct domain *d, struct dt_device_node *dev)
goto fail;
}
- rc = hd->platform_ops->assign_device(d, 0, dt_to_dev(dev));
+ /* The flag field doesn't matter to DT device. */
+ rc = hd->platform_ops->assign_device(d, 0, dt_to_dev(dev), 0);
if ( rc )
goto fail;
diff --git a/xen/drivers/passthrough/pci.c b/xen/drivers/passthrough/pci.c
index e30be43..6e23fc6 100644
--- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/pci.c
+++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/pci.c
@@ -1335,7 +1335,7 @@ static int device_assigned(u16 seg, u8 bus, u8 devfn)
return pdev ? 0 : -EBUSY;
}
-static int assign_device(struct domain *d, u16 seg, u8 bus, u8 devfn)
+static int assign_device(struct domain *d, u16 seg, u8 bus, u8 devfn, u32 flag)
{
struct hvm_iommu *hd = domain_hvm_iommu(d);
struct pci_dev *pdev;
@@ -1371,7 +1371,7 @@ static int assign_device(struct domain *d, u16 seg, u8 bus, u8 devfn)
pdev->fault.count = 0;
- if ( (rc = hd->platform_ops->assign_device(d, devfn, pci_to_dev(pdev))) )
+ if ( (rc = hd->platform_ops->assign_device(d, devfn, pci_to_dev(pdev), flag)) )
goto done;
for ( ; pdev->phantom_stride; rc = 0 )
@@ -1379,7 +1379,7 @@ static int assign_device(struct domain *d, u16 seg, u8 bus, u8 devfn)
devfn += pdev->phantom_stride;
if ( PCI_SLOT(devfn) != PCI_SLOT(pdev->devfn) )
break;
- rc = hd->platform_ops->assign_device(d, devfn, pci_to_dev(pdev));
+ rc = hd->platform_ops->assign_device(d, devfn, pci_to_dev(pdev), flag);
if ( rc )
printk(XENLOG_G_WARNING "d%d: assign %04x:%02x:%02x.%u failed (%d)\n",
d->domain_id, seg, bus, PCI_SLOT(devfn), PCI_FUNC(devfn),
@@ -1496,6 +1496,7 @@ int iommu_do_pci_domctl(
{
u16 seg;
u8 bus, devfn;
+ u32 flag;
int ret = 0;
uint32_t machine_sbdf;
@@ -1577,9 +1578,15 @@ int iommu_do_pci_domctl(
seg = machine_sbdf >> 16;
bus = PCI_BUS(machine_sbdf);
devfn = PCI_DEVFN2(machine_sbdf);
+ flag = domctl->u.assign_device.flag;
+ if ( flag > XEN_DOMCTL_DEV_RDM_RELAXED )
+ {
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ break;
+ }
ret = device_assigned(seg, bus, devfn) ?:
- assign_device(d, seg, bus, devfn);
+ assign_device(d, seg, bus, devfn, flag);
if ( ret == -ERESTART )
ret = hypercall_create_continuation(__HYPERVISOR_domctl,
"h", u_domctl);
diff --git a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
index 8415958..56f5911 100644
--- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
+++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
@@ -1807,7 +1807,8 @@ static void iommu_set_pgd(struct domain *d)
}
static int rmrr_identity_mapping(struct domain *d, bool_t map,
- const struct acpi_rmrr_unit *rmrr)
+ const struct acpi_rmrr_unit *rmrr,
+ u32 flag)
{
unsigned long base_pfn = rmrr->base_address >> PAGE_SHIFT_4K;
unsigned long end_pfn = PAGE_ALIGN_4K(rmrr->end_address) >> PAGE_SHIFT_4K;
@@ -1855,7 +1856,7 @@ static int rmrr_identity_mapping(struct domain *d, bool_t map,
while ( base_pfn < end_pfn )
{
- int err = set_identity_p2m_entry(d, base_pfn, p2m_access_rw);
+ int err = set_identity_p2m_entry(d, base_pfn, p2m_access_rw, flag);
if ( err )
return err;
@@ -1898,7 +1899,14 @@ static int intel_iommu_add_device(u8 devfn, struct pci_dev *pdev)
PCI_BUS(bdf) == pdev->bus &&
PCI_DEVFN2(bdf) == devfn )
{
- ret = rmrr_identity_mapping(pdev->domain, 1, rmrr);
+ /*
+ * Here means we're add a device to the hardware domain
+ * so actually RMRR is always reserved on e820 so either
+ * of flag is fine for hardware domain and here we'd like
+ * to pass XEN_DOMCTL_DEV_RDM_RELAXED.
+ */
+ ret = rmrr_identity_mapping(pdev->domain, 1, rmrr,
+ XEN_DOMCTL_DEV_RDM_RELAXED);
if ( ret )
dprintk(XENLOG_ERR VTDPREFIX, "d%d: RMRR mapping failed\n",
pdev->domain->domain_id);
@@ -1939,7 +1947,12 @@ static int intel_iommu_remove_device(u8 devfn, struct pci_dev *pdev)
PCI_DEVFN2(bdf) != devfn )
continue;
- rmrr_identity_mapping(pdev->domain, 0, rmrr);
+ /*
+ * Any flag is nothing to clear these mappings so here
+ * its always safe to set XEN_DOMCTL_DEV_RDM_RELAXED.
+ */
+ rmrr_identity_mapping(pdev->domain, 0, rmrr,
+ XEN_DOMCTL_DEV_RDM_RELAXED);
}
return domain_context_unmap(pdev->domain, devfn, pdev);
@@ -2098,7 +2111,13 @@ static void __hwdom_init setup_hwdom_rmrr(struct domain *d)
spin_lock(&pcidevs_lock);
for_each_rmrr_device ( rmrr, bdf, i )
{
- ret = rmrr_identity_mapping(d, 1, rmrr);
+ /*
+ * Here means we're add a device to the hardware domain
+ * so actually RMRR is always reserved on e820 so either
+ * of flag is fine for hardware domain and here we'd like
+ * to pass XEN_DOMCTL_DEV_RDM_RELAXED.
+ */
+ ret = rmrr_identity_mapping(d, 1, rmrr, XEN_DOMCTL_DEV_RDM_RELAXED);
if ( ret )
dprintk(XENLOG_ERR VTDPREFIX,
"IOMMU: mapping reserved region failed\n");
@@ -2241,7 +2260,12 @@ static int reassign_device_ownership(
PCI_BUS(bdf) == pdev->bus &&
PCI_DEVFN2(bdf) == devfn )
{
- ret = rmrr_identity_mapping(source, 0, rmrr);
+ /*
+ * Any RMRR flag is always ignored when remove a device,
+ * so just pass XEN_DOMCTL_DEV_RDM_RELAXED.
+ */
+ ret = rmrr_identity_mapping(source, 0, rmrr,
+ XEN_DOMCTL_DEV_RDM_RELAXED);
if ( ret != -ENOENT )
return ret;
}
@@ -2265,7 +2289,7 @@ static int reassign_device_ownership(
}
static int intel_iommu_assign_device(
- struct domain *d, u8 devfn, struct pci_dev *pdev)
+ struct domain *d, u8 devfn, struct pci_dev *pdev, u32 flag)
{
struct acpi_rmrr_unit *rmrr;
int ret = 0, i;
@@ -2294,7 +2318,7 @@ static int intel_iommu_assign_device(
PCI_BUS(bdf) == bus &&
PCI_DEVFN2(bdf) == devfn )
{
- ret = rmrr_identity_mapping(d, 1, rmrr);
+ ret = rmrr_identity_mapping(d, 1, rmrr, flag);
if ( ret )
{
reassign_device_ownership(d, hardware_domain, devfn, pdev);
diff --git a/xen/include/asm-x86/p2m.h b/xen/include/asm-x86/p2m.h
index 190a286..68da0a9 100644
--- a/xen/include/asm-x86/p2m.h
+++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/p2m.h
@@ -545,7 +545,7 @@ int clear_mmio_p2m_entry(struct domain *d, unsigned long gfn, mfn_t mfn);
/* Set identity addresses in the p2m table (for pass-through) */
int set_identity_p2m_entry(struct domain *d, unsigned long gfn,
- p2m_access_t p2ma);
+ p2m_access_t p2ma, unsigned int flag);
#define clear_identity_p2m_entry(d, gfn, page_order) \
guest_physmap_remove_page(d, gfn, gfn, page_order)
diff --git a/xen/include/public/domctl.h b/xen/include/public/domctl.h
index bc45ea5..bca25c9 100644
--- a/xen/include/public/domctl.h
+++ b/xen/include/public/domctl.h
@@ -478,6 +478,9 @@ struct xen_domctl_assign_device {
XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_64(char) path; /* path to the device tree node */
} dt;
} u;
+ /* IN */
+#define XEN_DOMCTL_DEV_RDM_RELAXED 1
+ uint32_t flag; /* flag of assigned device */
};
typedef struct xen_domctl_assign_device xen_domctl_assign_device_t;
DEFINE_XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(xen_domctl_assign_device_t);
diff --git a/xen/include/xen/iommu.h b/xen/include/xen/iommu.h
index e2f584d..02b2b02 100644
--- a/xen/include/xen/iommu.h
+++ b/xen/include/xen/iommu.h
@@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ struct iommu_ops {
int (*add_device)(u8 devfn, device_t *dev);
int (*enable_device)(device_t *dev);
int (*remove_device)(u8 devfn, device_t *dev);
- int (*assign_device)(struct domain *, u8 devfn, device_t *dev);
+ int (*assign_device)(struct domain *, u8 devfn, device_t *dev, u32 flag);
int (*reassign_device)(struct domain *s, struct domain *t,
u8 devfn, device_t *dev);
#ifdef HAS_PCI
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [v6][PATCH 04/16] xen: enable XENMEM_memory_map in hvm
2015-07-08 10:13 [v6][PATCH 00/16] Fix RMRR Tiejun Chen
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2015-07-08 10:13 ` [v6][PATCH 03/16] xen/passthrough: extend hypercall to support rdm reservation policy Tiejun Chen
@ 2015-07-08 10:13 ` Tiejun Chen
2015-07-08 10:13 ` [v6][PATCH 05/16] hvmloader: get guest memory map into memory_map[] Tiejun Chen
` (11 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Tiejun Chen @ 2015-07-08 10:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xen-devel; +Cc: Andrew Cooper, Keir Fraser, Jan Beulich
This patch enables XENMEM_memory_map in hvm. So hvmloader can
use it to setup the e820 mappings.
CC: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
CC: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
CC: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Acked-by: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
---
v6:
* Nothing is changed.
v5:
* Nothing is changed.
v4:
* Just refine the patch head description as Jan commented.
xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c | 2 --
xen/arch/x86/mm.c | 6 ------
2 files changed, 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
index 535d622..638daee 100644
--- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
@@ -4741,7 +4741,6 @@ static long hvm_memory_op(int cmd, XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) arg)
switch ( cmd & MEMOP_CMD_MASK )
{
- case XENMEM_memory_map:
case XENMEM_machine_memory_map:
case XENMEM_machphys_mapping:
return -ENOSYS;
@@ -4817,7 +4816,6 @@ static long hvm_memory_op_compat32(int cmd, XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) arg)
switch ( cmd & MEMOP_CMD_MASK )
{
- case XENMEM_memory_map:
case XENMEM_machine_memory_map:
case XENMEM_machphys_mapping:
return -ENOSYS;
diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/mm.c b/xen/arch/x86/mm.c
index fd151c6..92eccd0 100644
--- a/xen/arch/x86/mm.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm.c
@@ -4717,12 +4717,6 @@ long arch_memory_op(unsigned long cmd, XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) arg)
return rc;
}
- if ( is_hvm_domain(d) )
- {
- rcu_unlock_domain(d);
- return -EPERM;
- }
-
e820 = xmalloc_array(e820entry_t, fmap.map.nr_entries);
if ( e820 == NULL )
{
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [v6][PATCH 05/16] hvmloader: get guest memory map into memory_map[]
2015-07-08 10:13 [v6][PATCH 00/16] Fix RMRR Tiejun Chen
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2015-07-08 10:13 ` [v6][PATCH 04/16] xen: enable XENMEM_memory_map in hvm Tiejun Chen
@ 2015-07-08 10:13 ` Tiejun Chen
2015-07-08 10:13 ` [v6][PATCH 06/16] hvmloader/pci: skip reserved ranges Tiejun Chen
` (10 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Tiejun Chen @ 2015-07-08 10:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xen-devel
Cc: Keir Fraser, Ian Campbell, Stefano Stabellini, Andrew Cooper,
Ian Jackson, Jan Beulich, Wei Liu
Now we get this map layout by call XENMEM_memory_map then
save them into one global variable memory_map[]. It should
include lowmem range, rdm range and highmem range. Note
rdm range and highmem range may not exist in some cases.
And here we need to check if any reserved memory conflicts with
[RESERVED_MEMORY_DYNAMIC_START - 1, RESERVED_MEMORY_DYNAMIC_END].
This range is used to allocate memory in hvmloder level, and
we would lead hvmloader failed in case of conflict since its
another rare possibility in real world.
CC: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
CC: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
CC: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
CC: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>
CC: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
CC: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
CC: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
---
v6:
* Nothing is changed.
v5:
* Nothing is changed.
v4:
* Move some codes related to e820 to that specific file, e820.c.
* Consolidate "printf()+BUG()" and "BUG_ON()"
* Avoid another fixed width type for the parameter of get_mem_mapping_layout()
tools/firmware/hvmloader/e820.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
tools/firmware/hvmloader/e820.h | 7 +++++++
tools/firmware/hvmloader/hvmloader.c | 2 ++
tools/firmware/hvmloader/util.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
tools/firmware/hvmloader/util.h | 12 ++++++++++++
5 files changed, 82 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/e820.c b/tools/firmware/hvmloader/e820.c
index 2e05e93..3e53c47 100644
--- a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/e820.c
+++ b/tools/firmware/hvmloader/e820.c
@@ -23,6 +23,41 @@
#include "config.h"
#include "util.h"
+struct e820map memory_map;
+
+void memory_map_setup(void)
+{
+ unsigned int nr_entries = E820MAX, i;
+ int rc;
+ uint64_t alloc_addr = RESERVED_MEMORY_DYNAMIC_START - 1;
+ uint64_t alloc_size = RESERVED_MEMORY_DYNAMIC_END - alloc_addr;
+
+ rc = get_mem_mapping_layout(memory_map.map, &nr_entries);
+
+ if ( rc || !nr_entries )
+ {
+ printf("Get guest memory maps[%d] failed. (%d)\n", nr_entries, rc);
+ BUG();
+ }
+
+ memory_map.nr_map = nr_entries;
+
+ for ( i = 0; i < nr_entries; i++ )
+ {
+ if ( memory_map.map[i].type == E820_RESERVED )
+ {
+ if ( check_overlap(alloc_addr, alloc_size,
+ memory_map.map[i].addr,
+ memory_map.map[i].size) )
+ {
+ printf("Fail to setup memory map due to conflict");
+ printf(" on dynamic reserved memory range.\n");
+ BUG();
+ }
+ }
+ }
+}
+
void dump_e820_table(struct e820entry *e820, unsigned int nr)
{
uint64_t last_end = 0, start, end;
diff --git a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/e820.h b/tools/firmware/hvmloader/e820.h
index b2ead7f..8b5a9e0 100644
--- a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/e820.h
+++ b/tools/firmware/hvmloader/e820.h
@@ -15,6 +15,13 @@ struct e820entry {
uint32_t type;
} __attribute__((packed));
+#define E820MAX 128
+
+struct e820map {
+ unsigned int nr_map;
+ struct e820entry map[E820MAX];
+};
+
#endif /* __HVMLOADER_E820_H__ */
/*
diff --git a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/hvmloader.c b/tools/firmware/hvmloader/hvmloader.c
index 25b7f08..84c588c 100644
--- a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/hvmloader.c
+++ b/tools/firmware/hvmloader/hvmloader.c
@@ -262,6 +262,8 @@ int main(void)
init_hypercalls();
+ memory_map_setup();
+
xenbus_setup();
bios = detect_bios();
diff --git a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/util.c b/tools/firmware/hvmloader/util.c
index 80d822f..122e3fa 100644
--- a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/util.c
+++ b/tools/firmware/hvmloader/util.c
@@ -27,6 +27,17 @@
#include <xen/memory.h>
#include <xen/sched.h>
+/*
+ * Check whether there exists overlap in the specified memory range.
+ * Returns true if exists, else returns false.
+ */
+bool check_overlap(uint64_t start, uint64_t size,
+ uint64_t reserved_start, uint64_t reserved_size)
+{
+ return (start + size > reserved_start) &&
+ (start < reserved_start + reserved_size);
+}
+
void wrmsr(uint32_t idx, uint64_t v)
{
asm volatile (
@@ -368,6 +379,21 @@ uuid_to_string(char *dest, uint8_t *uuid)
*p = '\0';
}
+int get_mem_mapping_layout(struct e820entry entries[], uint32_t *max_entries)
+{
+ int rc;
+ struct xen_memory_map memmap = {
+ .nr_entries = *max_entries
+ };
+
+ set_xen_guest_handle(memmap.buffer, entries);
+
+ rc = hypercall_memory_op(XENMEM_memory_map, &memmap);
+ *max_entries = memmap.nr_entries;
+
+ return rc;
+}
+
void mem_hole_populate_ram(xen_pfn_t mfn, uint32_t nr_mfns)
{
static int over_allocated;
diff --git a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/util.h b/tools/firmware/hvmloader/util.h
index f99c0f19..1100a3b 100644
--- a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/util.h
+++ b/tools/firmware/hvmloader/util.h
@@ -4,8 +4,10 @@
#include <stdarg.h>
#include <stdint.h>
#include <stddef.h>
+#include <stdbool.h>
#include <xen/xen.h>
#include <xen/hvm/hvm_info_table.h>
+#include "e820.h"
#define __STR(...) #__VA_ARGS__
#define STR(...) __STR(__VA_ARGS__)
@@ -222,6 +224,9 @@ int hvm_param_set(uint32_t index, uint64_t value);
/* Setup PCI bus */
void pci_setup(void);
+/* Setup memory map */
+void memory_map_setup(void);
+
/* Prepare the 32bit BIOS */
uint32_t rombios_highbios_setup(void);
@@ -249,6 +254,13 @@ void perform_tests(void);
extern char _start[], _end[];
+int get_mem_mapping_layout(struct e820entry entries[],
+ unsigned int *max_entries);
+
+extern struct e820map memory_map;
+bool check_overlap(uint64_t start, uint64_t size,
+ uint64_t reserved_start, uint64_t reserved_size);
+
#endif /* __HVMLOADER_UTIL_H__ */
/*
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [v6][PATCH 06/16] hvmloader/pci: skip reserved ranges
2015-07-08 10:13 [v6][PATCH 00/16] Fix RMRR Tiejun Chen
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2015-07-08 10:13 ` [v6][PATCH 05/16] hvmloader: get guest memory map into memory_map[] Tiejun Chen
@ 2015-07-08 10:13 ` Tiejun Chen
2015-07-08 10:13 ` [v6][PATCH 07/16] hvmloader/e820: construct guest e820 table Tiejun Chen
` (9 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Tiejun Chen @ 2015-07-08 10:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xen-devel
Cc: Keir Fraser, Ian Campbell, Stefano Stabellini, Andrew Cooper,
Ian Jackson, Jan Beulich, Wei Liu
When allocating mmio address for PCI bars, we need to make
sure they don't overlap with reserved regions.
CC: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
CC: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
CC: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
CC: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>
CC: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
CC: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
CC: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
---
v6:
* Nothing is changed.
v5:
* Rename that field, is_64bar, inside struct bars with flag, and
then extend to also indicate if this bar is already allocated.
v4:
* We have to re-design this as follows:
#1. Goal
MMIO region should exclude all reserved device memory
#2. Requirements
#2.1 Still need to make sure MMIO region is fit all pci devices as before
#2.2 Accommodate the not aligned reserved memory regions
If I'm missing something let me know.
#3. How to
#3.1 Address #2.1
We need to either of populating more RAM, or of expanding more highmem. But
we should know just 64bit-bar can work with highmem, and as you mentioned we
also should avoid expanding highmem as possible. So my implementation is to
allocate 32bit-bar and 64bit-bar orderly.
1>. The first allocation round just to 32bit-bar
If we can finish allocating all 32bit-bar, we just go to allocate 64bit-bar
with all remaining resources including low pci memory.
If not, we need to calculate how much RAM should be populated to allocate the
remaining 32bit-bars, then populate sufficient RAM as exp_mem_resource to go
to the second allocation round 2>.
2>. The second allocation round to the remaining 32bit-bar
We should can finish allocating all 32bit-bar in theory, then go to the third
allocation round 3>.
3>. The third allocation round to 64bit-bar
We'll try to first allocate from the remaining low memory resource. If that
isn't enough, we try to expand highmem to allocate for 64bit-bar. This process
should be same as the original.
#3.2 Address #2.2
I'm trying to accommodate the not aligned reserved memory regions:
We should skip all reserved device memory, but we also need to check if other
smaller bars can be allocated if a mmio hole exists between resource->base and
reserved device memory. If a hole exists between base and reserved device
memory, lets go out simply to try allocate for next bar since all bars are in
descending order of size. If not, we need to move resource->base to reserved_end
just to reallocate this bar.
tools/firmware/hvmloader/pci.c | 194 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
1 file changed, 164 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/pci.c b/tools/firmware/hvmloader/pci.c
index 5ff87a7..397f3b7 100644
--- a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/pci.c
+++ b/tools/firmware/hvmloader/pci.c
@@ -38,6 +38,31 @@ uint64_t pci_hi_mem_start = 0, pci_hi_mem_end = 0;
enum virtual_vga virtual_vga = VGA_none;
unsigned long igd_opregion_pgbase = 0;
+static void relocate_ram_for_pci_memory(unsigned long cur_pci_mem_start)
+{
+ struct xen_add_to_physmap xatp;
+ unsigned int nr_pages = min_t(
+ unsigned int,
+ hvm_info->low_mem_pgend - (cur_pci_mem_start >> PAGE_SHIFT),
+ (1u << 16) - 1);
+ if ( hvm_info->high_mem_pgend == 0 )
+ hvm_info->high_mem_pgend = 1ull << (32 - PAGE_SHIFT);
+ hvm_info->low_mem_pgend -= nr_pages;
+ printf("Relocating 0x%x pages from "PRIllx" to "PRIllx\
+ " for lowmem MMIO hole\n",
+ nr_pages,
+ PRIllx_arg(((uint64_t)hvm_info->low_mem_pgend)<<PAGE_SHIFT),
+ PRIllx_arg(((uint64_t)hvm_info->high_mem_pgend)<<PAGE_SHIFT));
+ xatp.domid = DOMID_SELF;
+ xatp.space = XENMAPSPACE_gmfn_range;
+ xatp.idx = hvm_info->low_mem_pgend;
+ xatp.gpfn = hvm_info->high_mem_pgend;
+ xatp.size = nr_pages;
+ if ( hypercall_memory_op(XENMEM_add_to_physmap, &xatp) != 0 )
+ BUG();
+ hvm_info->high_mem_pgend += nr_pages;
+}
+
void pci_setup(void)
{
uint8_t is_64bar, using_64bar, bar64_relocate = 0;
@@ -50,17 +75,22 @@ void pci_setup(void)
/* Resources assignable to PCI devices via BARs. */
struct resource {
uint64_t base, max;
- } *resource, mem_resource, high_mem_resource, io_resource;
+ } *resource, mem_resource, high_mem_resource, io_resource, exp_mem_resource;
/* Create a list of device BARs in descending order of size. */
struct bars {
- uint32_t is_64bar;
+#define PCI_BAR_IS_64BIT 0x1
+#define PCI_BAR_IS_ALLOCATED 0x2
+ uint32_t flag;
uint32_t devfn;
uint32_t bar_reg;
uint64_t bar_sz;
} *bars = (struct bars *)scratch_start;
- unsigned int i, nr_bars = 0;
- uint64_t mmio_hole_size = 0;
+ unsigned int i, j, n, nr_bars = 0;
+ uint64_t mmio_hole_size = 0, reserved_start, reserved_end, reserved_size;
+ bool bar32_allocating = 0;
+ uint64_t mmio32_unallocated_total = 0;
+ unsigned long cur_pci_mem_start = 0;
const char *s;
/*
@@ -222,7 +252,7 @@ void pci_setup(void)
if ( i != nr_bars )
memmove(&bars[i+1], &bars[i], (nr_bars-i) * sizeof(*bars));
- bars[i].is_64bar = is_64bar;
+ bars[i].flag = is_64bar ? PCI_BAR_IS_64BIT : 0;
bars[i].devfn = devfn;
bars[i].bar_reg = bar_reg;
bars[i].bar_sz = bar_sz;
@@ -309,29 +339,31 @@ void pci_setup(void)
}
/* Relocate RAM that overlaps PCI space (in 64k-page chunks). */
+ cur_pci_mem_start = pci_mem_start;
while ( (pci_mem_start >> PAGE_SHIFT) < hvm_info->low_mem_pgend )
+ relocate_ram_for_pci_memory(cur_pci_mem_start);
+
+ /*
+ * Check if reserved device memory conflicts current pci memory.
+ * If yes, we need to first allocate bar32 since reserved devices
+ * always occupy low memory, and also enable relocating some BARs
+ * to 64bit as possible.
+ */
+ for ( i = 0; i < memory_map.nr_map ; i++ )
{
- struct xen_add_to_physmap xatp;
- unsigned int nr_pages = min_t(
- unsigned int,
- hvm_info->low_mem_pgend - (pci_mem_start >> PAGE_SHIFT),
- (1u << 16) - 1);
- if ( hvm_info->high_mem_pgend == 0 )
- hvm_info->high_mem_pgend = 1ull << (32 - PAGE_SHIFT);
- hvm_info->low_mem_pgend -= nr_pages;
- printf("Relocating 0x%x pages from "PRIllx" to "PRIllx\
- " for lowmem MMIO hole\n",
- nr_pages,
- PRIllx_arg(((uint64_t)hvm_info->low_mem_pgend)<<PAGE_SHIFT),
- PRIllx_arg(((uint64_t)hvm_info->high_mem_pgend)<<PAGE_SHIFT));
- xatp.domid = DOMID_SELF;
- xatp.space = XENMAPSPACE_gmfn_range;
- xatp.idx = hvm_info->low_mem_pgend;
- xatp.gpfn = hvm_info->high_mem_pgend;
- xatp.size = nr_pages;
- if ( hypercall_memory_op(XENMEM_add_to_physmap, &xatp) != 0 )
- BUG();
- hvm_info->high_mem_pgend += nr_pages;
+ reserved_start = memory_map.map[i].addr;
+ reserved_size = memory_map.map[i].size;
+ reserved_end = reserved_start + reserved_size;
+ if ( check_overlap(pci_mem_start, pci_mem_end - pci_mem_start,
+ reserved_start, reserved_size) )
+ {
+ printf("Reserved device memory conflicts current PCI memory,"
+ " so first to allocate 32-bit BAR and trying to"
+ " relocating some BARs to 64-bit\n");
+ bar32_allocating = 1;
+ if ( !bar64_relocate )
+ bar64_relocate = 1;
+ }
}
high_mem_resource.base = ((uint64_t)hvm_info->high_mem_pgend) << PAGE_SHIFT;
@@ -352,6 +384,7 @@ void pci_setup(void)
io_resource.base = 0xc000;
io_resource.max = 0x10000;
+ further_allocate:
/* Assign iomem and ioport resources in descending order of size. */
for ( i = 0; i < nr_bars; i++ )
{
@@ -359,6 +392,17 @@ void pci_setup(void)
bar_reg = bars[i].bar_reg;
bar_sz = bars[i].bar_sz;
+ /* Check if this bar is allocated. */
+ if ( bars[i].flag & PCI_BAR_IS_ALLOCATED )
+ continue;
+
+ /*
+ * This means we'd like to first allocate 32bit bar to make sure
+ * all 32bit bars can be allocated as possible.
+ */
+ if ( (bars[i].flag & PCI_BAR_IS_64BIT) && bar32_allocating )
+ continue;
+
/*
* Relocate to high memory if the total amount of MMIO needed
* is more than the low MMIO available. Because devices are
@@ -377,7 +421,7 @@ void pci_setup(void)
* the code here assumes it to be.)
* Should either of those two conditions change, this code will break.
*/
- using_64bar = bars[i].is_64bar && bar64_relocate
+ using_64bar = (bars[i].flag & PCI_BAR_IS_64BIT) && bar64_relocate
&& (mmio_total > (mem_resource.max - mem_resource.base));
bar_data = pci_readl(devfn, bar_reg);
@@ -395,7 +439,14 @@ void pci_setup(void)
bar_data &= ~PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_MASK;
}
else {
- resource = &mem_resource;
+ /*
+ * This menas we're trying to use that expanded
+ * memory to reallocate 32bars.
+ */
+ if ( mmio32_unallocated_total )
+ resource = &exp_mem_resource;
+ else
+ resource = &mem_resource;
bar_data &= ~PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_MASK;
}
mmio_total -= bar_sz;
@@ -406,9 +457,44 @@ void pci_setup(void)
bar_data &= ~PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_IO_MASK;
}
- base = (resource->base + bar_sz - 1) & ~(uint64_t)(bar_sz - 1);
+ reallocate_bar:
+ base = (resource->base + bar_sz - 1) & ~(uint64_t)(bar_sz - 1);
bar_data |= (uint32_t)base;
bar_data_upper = (uint32_t)(base >> 32);
+ /*
+ * We should skip all reserved device memory, but we also need
+ * to check if other smaller bars can be allocated if a mmio hole
+ * exists between resource->base and reserved device memory.
+ */
+ for ( j = 0; j < memory_map.nr_map ; j++ )
+ {
+ if ( memory_map.map[j].type != E820_RAM )
+ {
+ reserved_start = memory_map.map[i].addr;
+ reserved_size = memory_map.map[i].size;
+ reserved_end = reserved_start + reserved_size;
+ if ( check_overlap(base, bar_sz,
+ reserved_start, reserved_size) )
+ {
+ /*
+ * If a hole exists between base and reserved device
+ * memory, lets go out simply to try allocate for next
+ * bar since all bars are in descending order of size.
+ */
+ if ( resource->base < reserved_start )
+ continue;
+ /*
+ * If not, we need to move resource->base to
+ * reserved_end just to reallocate this bar.
+ */
+ else
+ {
+ resource->base = reserved_end;
+ goto reallocate_bar;
+ }
+ }
+ }
+ }
base += bar_sz;
if ( (base < resource->base) || (base > resource->max) )
@@ -428,7 +514,7 @@ void pci_setup(void)
devfn>>3, devfn&7, bar_reg,
PRIllx_arg(bar_sz),
bar_data_upper, bar_data);
-
+ bars[i].flag |= PCI_BAR_IS_ALLOCATED;
/* Now enable the memory or I/O mapping. */
cmd = pci_readw(devfn, PCI_COMMAND);
@@ -439,6 +525,54 @@ void pci_setup(void)
else
cmd |= PCI_COMMAND_IO;
pci_writew(devfn, PCI_COMMAND, cmd);
+
+ /* If we finish allocating bar32 at the first time. */
+ if ( i == nr_bars && bar32_allocating )
+ {
+ /*
+ * We won't repeat to populate more RAM to finalize
+ * allocate all 32bars, so just go to allocate 64bit-bars.
+ */
+ if ( mmio32_unallocated_total )
+ {
+ bar32_allocating = 0;
+ mmio32_unallocated_total = 0;
+ high_mem_resource.base =
+ ((uint64_t)hvm_info->high_mem_pgend) << PAGE_SHIFT;
+ goto further_allocate;
+ }
+
+ /* Calculate the remaining 32bars. */
+ for ( n = 0; n < nr_bars ; n++ )
+ {
+ if ( !(bars[n].flag & PCI_BAR_IS_64BIT) )
+ {
+ uint32_t devfn32, bar_reg32, bar_data32;
+ uint64_t bar_sz32;
+ devfn32 = bars[n].devfn;
+ bar_reg32 = bars[n].bar_reg;
+ bar_sz32 = bars[n].bar_sz;
+ bar_data32 = pci_readl(devfn32, bar_reg32);
+ if ( !bar_data32 )
+ mmio32_unallocated_total += bar_sz32;
+ }
+ }
+
+ /*
+ * We have to populate more RAM to further allocate
+ * the remaining 32bars.
+ */
+ if ( mmio32_unallocated_total )
+ {
+ cur_pci_mem_start = pci_mem_start - mmio32_unallocated_total;
+ relocate_ram_for_pci_memory(cur_pci_mem_start);
+ exp_mem_resource.base = cur_pci_mem_start;
+ exp_mem_resource.max = pci_mem_start;
+ }
+ else
+ bar32_allocating = 0;
+ goto further_allocate;
+ }
}
if ( pci_hi_mem_start )
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [v6][PATCH 07/16] hvmloader/e820: construct guest e820 table
2015-07-08 10:13 [v6][PATCH 00/16] Fix RMRR Tiejun Chen
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2015-07-08 10:13 ` [v6][PATCH 06/16] hvmloader/pci: skip reserved ranges Tiejun Chen
@ 2015-07-08 10:13 ` Tiejun Chen
2015-07-08 10:13 ` [v6][PATCH 08/16] tools/libxc: Expose new hypercall xc_reserved_device_memory_map Tiejun Chen
` (8 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Tiejun Chen @ 2015-07-08 10:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xen-devel
Cc: Keir Fraser, Ian Campbell, Stefano Stabellini, Andrew Cooper,
Ian Jackson, Jan Beulich, Wei Liu
Now we can use that memory map to build our final
e820 table but it may need to reorder all e820
entries.
CC: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
CC: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
CC: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
CC: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>
CC: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
CC: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
CC: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
---
v6:
* Nothing is changed.
v5:
* Nothing is changed.
v4:
* Rename local variable, low_mem_pgend, to low_mem_end.
* Improve some code comments
* Adjust highmem after lowmem is changed.
tools/firmware/hvmloader/e820.c | 80 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
1 file changed, 66 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/e820.c b/tools/firmware/hvmloader/e820.c
index 3e53c47..aa2569f 100644
--- a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/e820.c
+++ b/tools/firmware/hvmloader/e820.c
@@ -108,7 +108,9 @@ int build_e820_table(struct e820entry *e820,
unsigned int lowmem_reserved_base,
unsigned int bios_image_base)
{
- unsigned int nr = 0;
+ unsigned int nr = 0, i, j;
+ uint64_t add_high_mem = 0;
+ uint64_t low_mem_end = hvm_info->low_mem_pgend << PAGE_SHIFT;
if ( !lowmem_reserved_base )
lowmem_reserved_base = 0xA0000;
@@ -152,13 +154,6 @@ int build_e820_table(struct e820entry *e820,
e820[nr].type = E820_RESERVED;
nr++;
- /* Low RAM goes here. Reserve space for special pages. */
- BUG_ON((hvm_info->low_mem_pgend << PAGE_SHIFT) < (2u << 20));
- e820[nr].addr = 0x100000;
- e820[nr].size = (hvm_info->low_mem_pgend << PAGE_SHIFT) - e820[nr].addr;
- e820[nr].type = E820_RAM;
- nr++;
-
/*
* Explicitly reserve space for special pages.
* This space starts at RESERVED_MEMBASE an extends to cover various
@@ -194,16 +189,73 @@ int build_e820_table(struct e820entry *e820,
nr++;
}
-
- if ( hvm_info->high_mem_pgend )
+ /*
+ * Construct E820 table according to recorded memory map.
+ *
+ * The memory map created by toolstack may include,
+ *
+ * #1. Low memory region
+ *
+ * Low RAM starts at least from 1M to make sure all standard regions
+ * of the PC memory map, like BIOS, VGA memory-mapped I/O and vgabios,
+ * have enough space.
+ *
+ * #2. Reserved regions if they exist
+ *
+ * #3. High memory region if it exists
+ */
+ for ( i = 0; i < memory_map.nr_map; i++ )
{
- e820[nr].addr = ((uint64_t)1 << 32);
- e820[nr].size =
- ((uint64_t)hvm_info->high_mem_pgend << PAGE_SHIFT) - e820[nr].addr;
- e820[nr].type = E820_RAM;
+ e820[nr] = memory_map.map[i];
nr++;
}
+ /* Low RAM goes here. Reserve space for special pages. */
+ BUG_ON(low_mem_end < (2u << 20));
+
+ /*
+ * We may need to adjust real lowmem end since we may
+ * populate RAM to get enough MMIO previously.
+ */
+ for ( i = 0; i < memory_map.nr_map; i++ )
+ {
+ uint64_t end = e820[i].addr + e820[i].size;
+ if ( e820[i].type == E820_RAM &&
+ low_mem_end > e820[i].addr && low_mem_end < end )
+ {
+ add_high_mem = end - low_mem_end;
+ e820[i].size = low_mem_end - e820[i].addr;
+ }
+ }
+
+ /*
+ * And then we also need to adjust highmem.
+ */
+ if ( add_high_mem )
+ {
+ for ( i = 0; i < memory_map.nr_map; i++ )
+ {
+ if ( e820[i].type == E820_RAM &&
+ e820[i].addr > (1ull << 32))
+ e820[i].size += add_high_mem;
+ }
+ }
+
+ /* Finally we need to reorder all e820 entries. */
+ for ( j = 0; j < nr-1; j++ )
+ {
+ for ( i = j+1; i < nr; i++ )
+ {
+ if ( e820[j].addr > e820[i].addr )
+ {
+ struct e820entry tmp;
+ tmp = e820[j];
+ e820[j] = e820[i];
+ e820[i] = tmp;
+ }
+ }
+ }
+
return nr;
}
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [v6][PATCH 08/16] tools/libxc: Expose new hypercall xc_reserved_device_memory_map
2015-07-08 10:13 [v6][PATCH 00/16] Fix RMRR Tiejun Chen
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2015-07-08 10:13 ` [v6][PATCH 07/16] hvmloader/e820: construct guest e820 table Tiejun Chen
@ 2015-07-08 10:13 ` Tiejun Chen
2015-07-08 10:13 ` [v6][PATCH 09/16] tools: extend xc_assign_device() to support rdm reservation policy Tiejun Chen
` (7 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Tiejun Chen @ 2015-07-08 10:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xen-devel; +Cc: Wei Liu, Ian Jackson, Ian Campbell, Stefano Stabellini
We will introduce the hypercall xc_reserved_device_memory_map
approach to libxc. This helps us get rdm entry info according to
different parameters. If flag == PCI_DEV_RDM_ALL, all entries
should be exposed. Or we just expose that rdm entry specific to
a SBDF.
CC: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>
CC: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
CC: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
CC: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
Acked-by: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
---
v6:
* Nothing is changed.
v5:
* Nothing is changed.
v4:
* Nothing is changed.
tools/libxc/include/xenctrl.h | 8 ++++++++
tools/libxc/xc_domain.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 44 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/libxc/include/xenctrl.h b/tools/libxc/include/xenctrl.h
index d1d2ab3..9160623 100644
--- a/tools/libxc/include/xenctrl.h
+++ b/tools/libxc/include/xenctrl.h
@@ -1326,6 +1326,14 @@ int xc_domain_set_memory_map(xc_interface *xch,
int xc_get_machine_memory_map(xc_interface *xch,
struct e820entry entries[],
uint32_t max_entries);
+
+int xc_reserved_device_memory_map(xc_interface *xch,
+ uint32_t flag,
+ uint16_t seg,
+ uint8_t bus,
+ uint8_t devfn,
+ struct xen_reserved_device_memory entries[],
+ uint32_t *max_entries);
#endif
int xc_domain_set_time_offset(xc_interface *xch,
uint32_t domid,
diff --git a/tools/libxc/xc_domain.c b/tools/libxc/xc_domain.c
index ce51e69..0951291 100644
--- a/tools/libxc/xc_domain.c
+++ b/tools/libxc/xc_domain.c
@@ -684,6 +684,42 @@ int xc_domain_set_memory_map(xc_interface *xch,
return rc;
}
+
+int xc_reserved_device_memory_map(xc_interface *xch,
+ uint32_t flag,
+ uint16_t seg,
+ uint8_t bus,
+ uint8_t devfn,
+ struct xen_reserved_device_memory entries[],
+ uint32_t *max_entries)
+{
+ int rc;
+ struct xen_reserved_device_memory_map xrdmmap = {
+ .flag = flag,
+ .seg = seg,
+ .bus = bus,
+ .devfn = devfn,
+ .nr_entries = *max_entries
+ };
+ DECLARE_HYPERCALL_BOUNCE(entries,
+ sizeof(struct xen_reserved_device_memory) *
+ *max_entries, XC_HYPERCALL_BUFFER_BOUNCE_OUT);
+
+ if ( xc_hypercall_bounce_pre(xch, entries) )
+ return -1;
+
+ set_xen_guest_handle(xrdmmap.buffer, entries);
+
+ rc = do_memory_op(xch, XENMEM_reserved_device_memory_map,
+ &xrdmmap, sizeof(xrdmmap));
+
+ xc_hypercall_bounce_post(xch, entries);
+
+ *max_entries = xrdmmap.nr_entries;
+
+ return rc;
+}
+
int xc_get_machine_memory_map(xc_interface *xch,
struct e820entry entries[],
uint32_t max_entries)
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [v6][PATCH 09/16] tools: extend xc_assign_device() to support rdm reservation policy
2015-07-08 10:13 [v6][PATCH 00/16] Fix RMRR Tiejun Chen
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2015-07-08 10:13 ` [v6][PATCH 08/16] tools/libxc: Expose new hypercall xc_reserved_device_memory_map Tiejun Chen
@ 2015-07-08 10:13 ` Tiejun Chen
2015-07-08 10:13 ` [v6][PATCH 10/16] tools: introduce some new parameters to set rdm policy Tiejun Chen
` (6 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Tiejun Chen @ 2015-07-08 10:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xen-devel
Cc: Wei Liu, David Scott, Ian Jackson, Ian Campbell,
Stefano Stabellini
This patch passes rdm reservation policy to xc_assign_device() so the policy
is checked when assigning devices to a VM.
Note this also bring some fallout to python usage of xc_assign_device().
CC: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>
CC: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
CC: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
CC: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
CC: David Scott <dave.scott@eu.citrix.com>
Acked-by: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
---
v6:
* Nothing is changed.
v5:
* Fix the flag field as "0" to DT device
v4:
* In the patch head description, I add to explain why we need to sync
the xc.c file
tools/libxc/include/xenctrl.h | 3 ++-
tools/libxc/xc_domain.c | 9 ++++++++-
tools/libxl/libxl_pci.c | 3 ++-
tools/ocaml/libs/xc/xenctrl_stubs.c | 16 ++++++++++++----
tools/python/xen/lowlevel/xc/xc.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++----------
5 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/libxc/include/xenctrl.h b/tools/libxc/include/xenctrl.h
index 9160623..89cbc5a 100644
--- a/tools/libxc/include/xenctrl.h
+++ b/tools/libxc/include/xenctrl.h
@@ -2079,7 +2079,8 @@ int xc_hvm_destroy_ioreq_server(xc_interface *xch,
/* HVM guest pass-through */
int xc_assign_device(xc_interface *xch,
uint32_t domid,
- uint32_t machine_sbdf);
+ uint32_t machine_sbdf,
+ uint32_t flag);
int xc_get_device_group(xc_interface *xch,
uint32_t domid,
diff --git a/tools/libxc/xc_domain.c b/tools/libxc/xc_domain.c
index 0951291..ef41228 100644
--- a/tools/libxc/xc_domain.c
+++ b/tools/libxc/xc_domain.c
@@ -1697,7 +1697,8 @@ int xc_domain_setdebugging(xc_interface *xch,
int xc_assign_device(
xc_interface *xch,
uint32_t domid,
- uint32_t machine_sbdf)
+ uint32_t machine_sbdf,
+ uint32_t flag)
{
DECLARE_DOMCTL;
@@ -1705,6 +1706,7 @@ int xc_assign_device(
domctl.domain = domid;
domctl.u.assign_device.dev = XEN_DOMCTL_DEV_PCI;
domctl.u.assign_device.u.pci.machine_sbdf = machine_sbdf;
+ domctl.u.assign_device.flag = flag;
return do_domctl(xch, &domctl);
}
@@ -1792,6 +1794,11 @@ int xc_assign_dt_device(
domctl.u.assign_device.dev = XEN_DOMCTL_DEV_DT;
domctl.u.assign_device.u.dt.size = size;
+ /*
+ * DT doesn't own any RDM so actually DT has nothing to do
+ * for any flag and here just fix that as 0.
+ */
+ domctl.u.assign_device.flag = 0;
set_xen_guest_handle(domctl.u.assign_device.u.dt.path, path);
rc = do_domctl(xch, &domctl);
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_pci.c b/tools/libxl/libxl_pci.c
index e0743f8..632c15e 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_pci.c
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_pci.c
@@ -894,6 +894,7 @@ static int do_pci_add(libxl__gc *gc, uint32_t domid, libxl_device_pci *pcidev, i
FILE *f;
unsigned long long start, end, flags, size;
int irq, i, rc, hvm = 0;
+ uint32_t flag = XEN_DOMCTL_DEV_RDM_RELAXED;
if (type == LIBXL_DOMAIN_TYPE_INVALID)
return ERROR_FAIL;
@@ -987,7 +988,7 @@ static int do_pci_add(libxl__gc *gc, uint32_t domid, libxl_device_pci *pcidev, i
out:
if (!libxl_is_stubdom(ctx, domid, NULL)) {
- rc = xc_assign_device(ctx->xch, domid, pcidev_encode_bdf(pcidev));
+ rc = xc_assign_device(ctx->xch, domid, pcidev_encode_bdf(pcidev), flag);
if (rc < 0 && (hvm || errno != ENOSYS)) {
LIBXL__LOG_ERRNO(ctx, LIBXL__LOG_ERROR, "xc_assign_device failed");
return ERROR_FAIL;
diff --git a/tools/ocaml/libs/xc/xenctrl_stubs.c b/tools/ocaml/libs/xc/xenctrl_stubs.c
index 64f1137..b7de615 100644
--- a/tools/ocaml/libs/xc/xenctrl_stubs.c
+++ b/tools/ocaml/libs/xc/xenctrl_stubs.c
@@ -1172,12 +1172,17 @@ CAMLprim value stub_xc_domain_test_assign_device(value xch, value domid, value d
CAMLreturn(Val_bool(ret == 0));
}
-CAMLprim value stub_xc_domain_assign_device(value xch, value domid, value desc)
+static int domain_assign_device_rdm_flag_table[] = {
+ XEN_DOMCTL_DEV_RDM_RELAXED,
+};
+
+CAMLprim value stub_xc_domain_assign_device(value xch, value domid, value desc,
+ value rflag)
{
- CAMLparam3(xch, domid, desc);
+ CAMLparam4(xch, domid, desc, rflag);
int ret;
int domain, bus, dev, func;
- uint32_t sbdf;
+ uint32_t sbdf, flag;
domain = Int_val(Field(desc, 0));
bus = Int_val(Field(desc, 1));
@@ -1185,7 +1190,10 @@ CAMLprim value stub_xc_domain_assign_device(value xch, value domid, value desc)
func = Int_val(Field(desc, 3));
sbdf = encode_sbdf(domain, bus, dev, func);
- ret = xc_assign_device(_H(xch), _D(domid), sbdf);
+ ret = Int_val(Field(rflag, 0));
+ flag = domain_assign_device_rdm_flag_table[ret];
+
+ ret = xc_assign_device(_H(xch), _D(domid), sbdf, flag);
if (ret < 0)
failwith_xc(_H(xch));
diff --git a/tools/python/xen/lowlevel/xc/xc.c b/tools/python/xen/lowlevel/xc/xc.c
index c77e15b..a4928c6 100644
--- a/tools/python/xen/lowlevel/xc/xc.c
+++ b/tools/python/xen/lowlevel/xc/xc.c
@@ -592,7 +592,8 @@ static int token_value(char *token)
return strtol(token, NULL, 16);
}
-static int next_bdf(char **str, int *seg, int *bus, int *dev, int *func)
+static int next_bdf(char **str, int *seg, int *bus, int *dev, int *func,
+ int *flag)
{
char *token;
@@ -607,8 +608,17 @@ static int next_bdf(char **str, int *seg, int *bus, int *dev, int *func)
*dev = token_value(token);
token = strchr(token, ',') + 1;
*func = token_value(token);
- token = strchr(token, ',');
- *str = token ? token + 1 : NULL;
+ token = strchr(token, ',') + 1;
+ if ( token ) {
+ *flag = token_value(token);
+ *str = token + 1;
+ }
+ else
+ {
+ /* O means we take "strict" as our default policy. */
+ *flag = 0;
+ *str = NULL;
+ }
return 1;
}
@@ -620,14 +630,14 @@ static PyObject *pyxc_test_assign_device(XcObject *self,
uint32_t dom;
char *pci_str;
int32_t sbdf = 0;
- int seg, bus, dev, func;
+ int seg, bus, dev, func, flag;
static char *kwd_list[] = { "domid", "pci", NULL };
if ( !PyArg_ParseTupleAndKeywords(args, kwds, "is", kwd_list,
&dom, &pci_str) )
return NULL;
- while ( next_bdf(&pci_str, &seg, &bus, &dev, &func) )
+ while ( next_bdf(&pci_str, &seg, &bus, &dev, &func, &flag) )
{
sbdf = seg << 16;
sbdf |= (bus & 0xff) << 8;
@@ -653,21 +663,21 @@ static PyObject *pyxc_assign_device(XcObject *self,
uint32_t dom;
char *pci_str;
int32_t sbdf = 0;
- int seg, bus, dev, func;
+ int seg, bus, dev, func, flag;
static char *kwd_list[] = { "domid", "pci", NULL };
if ( !PyArg_ParseTupleAndKeywords(args, kwds, "is", kwd_list,
&dom, &pci_str) )
return NULL;
- while ( next_bdf(&pci_str, &seg, &bus, &dev, &func) )
+ while ( next_bdf(&pci_str, &seg, &bus, &dev, &func, &flag) )
{
sbdf = seg << 16;
sbdf |= (bus & 0xff) << 8;
sbdf |= (dev & 0x1f) << 3;
sbdf |= (func & 0x7);
- if ( xc_assign_device(self->xc_handle, dom, sbdf) != 0 )
+ if ( xc_assign_device(self->xc_handle, dom, sbdf, flag) != 0 )
{
if (errno == ENOSYS)
sbdf = -1;
@@ -686,14 +696,14 @@ static PyObject *pyxc_deassign_device(XcObject *self,
uint32_t dom;
char *pci_str;
int32_t sbdf = 0;
- int seg, bus, dev, func;
+ int seg, bus, dev, func, flag;
static char *kwd_list[] = { "domid", "pci", NULL };
if ( !PyArg_ParseTupleAndKeywords(args, kwds, "is", kwd_list,
&dom, &pci_str) )
return NULL;
- while ( next_bdf(&pci_str, &seg, &bus, &dev, &func) )
+ while ( next_bdf(&pci_str, &seg, &bus, &dev, &func, &flag) )
{
sbdf = seg << 16;
sbdf |= (bus & 0xff) << 8;
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [v6][PATCH 10/16] tools: introduce some new parameters to set rdm policy
2015-07-08 10:13 [v6][PATCH 00/16] Fix RMRR Tiejun Chen
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2015-07-08 10:13 ` [v6][PATCH 09/16] tools: extend xc_assign_device() to support rdm reservation policy Tiejun Chen
@ 2015-07-08 10:13 ` Tiejun Chen
2015-07-08 11:47 ` Ian Jackson
2015-07-08 10:13 ` [v6][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM Tiejun Chen
` (5 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: Tiejun Chen @ 2015-07-08 10:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xen-devel; +Cc: Wei Liu, Ian Jackson, Ian Campbell, Stefano Stabellini
This patch introduces user configurable parameters to specify RDM
resource and according policies,
Global RDM parameter:
rdm = "strategy=host,reserve=strict/relaxed"
Per-device RDM parameter:
pci = [ 'sbdf, rdm_reserve=strict/relaxed' ]
Global RDM parameter, "strategy", allows user to specify reserved regions
explicitly, Currently, using 'host' to include all reserved regions reported
on this platform which is good to handle hotplug scenario. In the future
this parameter may be further extended to allow specifying random regions,
e.g. even those belonging to another platform as a preparation for live
migration with passthrough devices. By default this isn't set so we don't
check all rdms. Instead, we just check rdm specific to a given device if
you're assigning this kind of device. Note this option is not recommended
unless you can make sure any conflict does exist.
'strict/relaxed' policy decides how to handle conflict when reserving RDM
regions in pfn space. If conflict exists, 'strict' means an immediate error
so VM can't keep running, while 'relaxed' allows moving forward with a
warning message thrown out.
Default per-device RDM policy is same as default global RDM policy as being
'relaxed'. And the per-device policy would override the global policy like
others.
CC: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>
CC: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
CC: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
CC: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
---
v6:
* Some rename to make our policy reasonable
"type" -> "strategy"
"none" -> "ignore"
* Don't expose "ignore" in xl level and just keep that as a default.
And then sync docs and the patch head description
v5:
* Just make sure the per-device plicy always override the global policy,
and so cleanup some associated comments and the patch head description.
* A little change to follow one bit, XEN_DOMCTL_DEV_RDM_RELAXED.
* Improve all descriptions in doc.
* Make all rdm variables specific to .hvm
v4:
* No need to define init_val for libxl_rdm_reserve_type since its just zero
* Grab those changes to xl/libxlu to as a final patch
docs/man/xl.cfg.pod.5 | 81 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
docs/misc/vtd.txt | 24 +++++++++++++
tools/libxl/libxl_create.c | 7 ++++
tools/libxl/libxl_internal.h | 2 ++
tools/libxl/libxl_pci.c | 9 +++++
tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl | 18 ++++++++++
6 files changed, 141 insertions(+)
diff --git a/docs/man/xl.cfg.pod.5 b/docs/man/xl.cfg.pod.5
index a3e0e2e..091e80d 100644
--- a/docs/man/xl.cfg.pod.5
+++ b/docs/man/xl.cfg.pod.5
@@ -655,6 +655,79 @@ assigned slave device.
=back
+=item B<rdm="RDM_RESERVATION_STRING">
+
+(HVM/x86 only) Specifies information about Reserved Device Memory (RDM),
+which is necessary to enable robust device passthrough. One example of RDM
+is reported through ACPI Reserved Memory Region Reporting (RMRR) structure
+on x86 platform.
+
+B<RDM_RESERVE_STRING> has the form C<[KEY=VALUE,KEY=VALUE,...> where:
+
+=over 4
+
+=item B<KEY=VALUE>
+
+Possible B<KEY>s are:
+
+=over 4
+
+=item B<strategy="STRING">
+
+Currently there is only one valid type:
+
+"host" means all reserved device memory on this platform should be checked to
+reserve regions in this VM's guest address space. This global rdm parameter
+allows user to specify reserved regions explicitly, and using "host" includes
+all reserved regions reported on this platform, which is useful when doing
+hotplug.
+
+By default this isn't set so we don't check all rdms. Instead, we just check
+rdm specific to a given device if you're assigning this kind of device. Note
+this option is not recommended unless you can make sure any conflict does exist.
+
+For example, you're trying to set "memory = 2800" to allocate memory to one
+given VM but the platform owns two RDM regions like,
+
+Device A [sbdf_A]: RMRR region_A: base_addr ac6d3000 end_address ac6e6fff
+Device B [sbdf_B]: RMRR region_B: base_addr ad800000 end_address afffffff
+
+In this conflict case,
+
+#1. If B<strategy> is set to "host", for example,
+
+rdm = "strategy=host,reserve=strict" or rdm = "strategy=host,reserve=relaxed"
+
+It means all conflicts will be handled according to the policy
+introduced by B<reserve> as described below.
+
+#2. If B<strategy> is not set at all, but
+
+pci = [ 'sbdf_A, rdm_reserve=xxxxx' ]
+
+It means only one conflict of region_A will be handled according to the policy
+introduced by B<rdm_reserve="STRING"> as described inside pci options.
+
+=item B<reserve="STRING">
+
+Specifies how to deal with conflicts when reserving reserved device
+memory in guest address space.
+
+When that conflict is unsolved,
+
+"strict" means VM can't be created, or the associated device can't be
+attached in the case of hotplug.
+
+"relaxed" allows VM to be created but may cause VM to crash if
+pass-through device accesses RDM. For exampl,e Windows IGD GFX driver
+always accessed RDM regions so it leads to VM crash.
+
+Note this may be overridden by rdm_reserve option in PCI device configuration.
+
+=back
+
+=back
+
=item B<pci=[ "PCI_SPEC_STRING", "PCI_SPEC_STRING", ... ]>
Specifies the host PCI devices to passthrough to this guest. Each B<PCI_SPEC_STRING>
@@ -717,6 +790,14 @@ dom0 without confirmation. Please use with care.
D0-D3hot power management states for the PCI device. False (0) by
default.
+=item B<rdm_reserve="STRING">
+
+(HVM/x86 only) This is same as reserve option inside the rdm option but
+just specific to a given device. Therefore the default is "relaxed" as
+same as reserve option as well.
+
+Note this would override global B<rdm> option.
+
=back
=back
diff --git a/docs/misc/vtd.txt b/docs/misc/vtd.txt
index 9af0e99..c0824a9 100644
--- a/docs/misc/vtd.txt
+++ b/docs/misc/vtd.txt
@@ -111,6 +111,30 @@ in the config file:
To override for a specific device:
pci = [ '01:00.0,msitranslate=0', '03:00.0' ]
+RDM, 'reserved device memory', for PCI Device Passthrough
+---------------------------------------------------------
+
+There are some devices the BIOS controls, for e.g. USB devices to perform
+PS2 emulation. The regions of memory used for these devices are marked
+reserved in the e820 map. When we turn on DMA translation, DMA to those
+regions will fail. Hence BIOS uses RMRR to specify these regions along with
+devices that need to access these regions. OS is expected to setup
+identity mappings for these regions for these devices to access these regions.
+
+While creating a VM we should reserve them in advance, and avoid any conflicts.
+So we introduce user configurable parameters to specify RDM resource and
+according policies,
+
+To enable this globally, add "rdm" in the config file:
+
+ rdm = "strategy=host, reserve=relaxed" (default policy is "relaxed")
+
+Or just for a specific device:
+
+ pci = [ '01:00.0,rdm_reserve=relaxed', '03:00.0,rdm_reserve=strict' ]
+
+For all the options available to RDM, see xl.cfg(5).
+
Caveat on Conventional PCI Device Passthrough
---------------------------------------------
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_create.c b/tools/libxl/libxl_create.c
index f366a09..b884fa1 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_create.c
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_create.c
@@ -105,6 +105,12 @@ static int sched_params_valid(libxl__gc *gc,
return 1;
}
+void libxl__rdm_setdefault(libxl__gc *gc, libxl_domain_build_info *b_info)
+{
+ if (b_info->u.hvm.rdm.reserve == LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_FLAG_INVALID)
+ b_info->u.hvm.rdm.reserve = LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_FLAG_RELAXED;
+}
+
int libxl__domain_build_info_setdefault(libxl__gc *gc,
libxl_domain_build_info *b_info)
{
@@ -384,6 +390,7 @@ int libxl__domain_build_info_setdefault(libxl__gc *gc,
libxl_defbool_setdefault(&b_info->u.hvm.gfx_passthru, false);
+ libxl__rdm_setdefault(gc, b_info);
break;
case LIBXL_DOMAIN_TYPE_PV:
libxl_defbool_setdefault(&b_info->u.pv.e820_host, false);
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_internal.h b/tools/libxl/libxl_internal.h
index d52589e..d397143 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_internal.h
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_internal.h
@@ -1154,6 +1154,8 @@ _hidden int libxl__device_vtpm_setdefault(libxl__gc *gc, libxl_device_vtpm *vtpm
_hidden int libxl__device_vfb_setdefault(libxl__gc *gc, libxl_device_vfb *vfb);
_hidden int libxl__device_vkb_setdefault(libxl__gc *gc, libxl_device_vkb *vkb);
_hidden int libxl__device_pci_setdefault(libxl__gc *gc, libxl_device_pci *pci);
+_hidden void libxl__rdm_setdefault(libxl__gc *gc,
+ libxl_domain_build_info *b_info);
_hidden const char *libxl__device_nic_devname(libxl__gc *gc,
uint32_t domid,
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_pci.c b/tools/libxl/libxl_pci.c
index 632c15e..f0a32fa 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_pci.c
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_pci.c
@@ -988,6 +988,12 @@ static int do_pci_add(libxl__gc *gc, uint32_t domid, libxl_device_pci *pcidev, i
out:
if (!libxl_is_stubdom(ctx, domid, NULL)) {
+ if (pcidev->rdm_reserve == LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_FLAG_STRICT) {
+ flag &= ~XEN_DOMCTL_DEV_RDM_RELAXED;
+ } else if (pcidev->rdm_reserve != LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_FLAG_RELAXED) {
+ LIBXL__LOG_ERRNO(ctx, LIBXL__LOG_ERROR, "unknown rdm check flag.");
+ return ERROR_FAIL;
+ }
rc = xc_assign_device(ctx->xch, domid, pcidev_encode_bdf(pcidev), flag);
if (rc < 0 && (hvm || errno != ENOSYS)) {
LIBXL__LOG_ERRNO(ctx, LIBXL__LOG_ERROR, "xc_assign_device failed");
@@ -1040,6 +1046,9 @@ static int libxl__device_pci_reset(libxl__gc *gc, unsigned int domain, unsigned
int libxl__device_pci_setdefault(libxl__gc *gc, libxl_device_pci *pci)
{
+ /* We'd like to force reserve rdm specific to a device by default.*/
+ if ( pci->rdm_reserve == LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_FLAG_INVALID)
+ pci->rdm_reserve = LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_FLAG_STRICT;
return 0;
}
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl b/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl
index e1632fa..546686d 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl
@@ -76,6 +76,17 @@ libxl_domain_type = Enumeration("domain_type", [
(2, "PV"),
], init_val = "LIBXL_DOMAIN_TYPE_INVALID")
+libxl_rdm_reserve_strategy = Enumeration("rdm_reserve_strategy", [
+ (0, "ignore"),
+ (1, "host"),
+ ])
+
+libxl_rdm_reserve_flag = Enumeration("rdm_reserve_flag", [
+ (-1, "invalid"),
+ (0, "strict"),
+ (1, "relaxed"),
+ ], init_val = "LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_FLAG_INVALID")
+
libxl_channel_connection = Enumeration("channel_connection", [
(0, "UNKNOWN"),
(1, "PTY"),
@@ -369,6 +380,11 @@ libxl_vnode_info = Struct("vnode_info", [
("vcpus", libxl_bitmap), # vcpus in this node
])
+libxl_rdm_reserve = Struct("rdm_reserve", [
+ ("strategy", libxl_rdm_reserve_strategy),
+ ("reserve", libxl_rdm_reserve_flag),
+ ])
+
libxl_domain_build_info = Struct("domain_build_info",[
("max_vcpus", integer),
("avail_vcpus", libxl_bitmap),
@@ -467,6 +483,7 @@ libxl_domain_build_info = Struct("domain_build_info",[
# See libxl_ms_vm_genid_generate()
("ms_vm_genid", libxl_ms_vm_genid),
("serial_list", libxl_string_list),
+ ("rdm", libxl_rdm_reserve),
])),
("pv", Struct(None, [("kernel", string),
("slack_memkb", MemKB),
@@ -542,6 +559,7 @@ libxl_device_pci = Struct("device_pci", [
("power_mgmt", bool),
("permissive", bool),
("seize", bool),
+ ("rdm_reserve", libxl_rdm_reserve_flag),
])
libxl_device_dtdev = Struct("device_dtdev", [
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [v6][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM
2015-07-08 10:13 [v6][PATCH 00/16] Fix RMRR Tiejun Chen
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2015-07-08 10:13 ` [v6][PATCH 10/16] tools: introduce some new parameters to set rdm policy Tiejun Chen
@ 2015-07-08 10:13 ` Tiejun Chen
2015-07-08 10:13 ` [v6][PATCH 12/16] tools: introduce a new parameter to set a predefined rdm boundary Tiejun Chen
` (4 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Tiejun Chen @ 2015-07-08 10:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xen-devel; +Cc: Wei Liu, Ian Jackson, Ian Campbell, Stefano Stabellini
While building a VM, HVM domain builder provides struct hvm_info_table{}
to help hvmloader. Currently it includes two fields to construct guest
e820 table by hvmloader, low_mem_pgend and high_mem_pgend. So we should
check them to fix any conflict with RDM.
RMRR can reside in address space beyond 4G theoretically, but we never
see this in real world. So in order to avoid breaking highmem layout
we don't solve highmem conflict. Note this means highmem rmrr could still
be supported if no conflict.
But in the case of lowmem, RMRR probably scatter the whole RAM space.
Especially multiple RMRR entries would worsen this to lead a complicated
memory layout. And then its hard to extend hvm_info_table{} to work
hvmloader out. So here we're trying to figure out a simple solution to
avoid breaking existing layout. So when a conflict occurs,
#1. Above a predefined boundary (2G)
- move lowmem_end below reserved region to solve conflict;
#2. Below a predefined boundary (2G)
- Check strict/relaxed policy.
"strict" policy leads to fail libxl. Note when both policies
are specified on a given region, 'strict' is always preferred.
"relaxed" policy issue a warning message and also mask this entry INVALID
to indicate we shouldn't expose this entry to hvmloader.
Note later we need to provide a parameter to set that predefined boundary
dynamically.
CC: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>
CC: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
CC: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
CC: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Acked-by: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Tian <kevint.tian@intel.com>
---
v6:
* fix some code stypes
* Refine libxl__xc_device_get_rdm()
v5:
* A little change to make sure the per-device policy always override the global
policy and correct its associated code comments.
* Fix one typo in the patch head description
* Rename xc_device_get_rdm() with libxl__xc_device_get_rdm(), and then replace
malloc() with libxl__malloc(), and finally cleanup this fallout.
* libxl__xc_device_get_rdm() should return proper libxl error code, ERROR_FAIL.
Then instead, the allocated RDM entries would be returned with an out parameter.
v4:
* Consistent to use term "RDM".
* Unconditionally set *nr_entries to 0
* Grab to all sutffs to provide a parameter to set our predefined boundary
dynamically to as a separated patch later
tools/libxl/libxl_create.c | 2 +-
tools/libxl/libxl_dm.c | 264 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
tools/libxl/libxl_dom.c | 17 ++-
tools/libxl/libxl_internal.h | 11 +-
tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl | 7 ++
5 files changed, 298 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_create.c b/tools/libxl/libxl_create.c
index b884fa1..7a0c57d 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_create.c
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_create.c
@@ -459,7 +459,7 @@ int libxl__domain_build(libxl__gc *gc,
switch (info->type) {
case LIBXL_DOMAIN_TYPE_HVM:
- ret = libxl__build_hvm(gc, domid, info, state);
+ ret = libxl__build_hvm(gc, domid, d_config, state);
if (ret)
goto out;
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_dm.c b/tools/libxl/libxl_dm.c
index 317a8eb..d68ea89 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_dm.c
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_dm.c
@@ -90,6 +90,270 @@ const char *libxl__domain_device_model(libxl__gc *gc,
return dm;
}
+static int
+libxl__xc_device_get_rdm(libxl__gc *gc,
+ uint32_t flag,
+ uint16_t seg,
+ uint8_t bus,
+ uint8_t devfn,
+ unsigned int *nr_entries,
+ struct xen_reserved_device_memory **xrdm)
+{
+ int rc = 0, r;
+
+ /*
+ * We really can't presume how many entries we can get in advance.
+ */
+ *nr_entries = 0;
+ r = xc_reserved_device_memory_map(CTX->xch, flag, seg, bus, devfn,
+ NULL, nr_entries);
+ assert(r <= 0);
+ /* "0" means we have no any rdm entry. */
+ if (!r) goto out;
+
+ if (errno != ENOBUFS) {
+ rc = ERROR_FAIL;
+ goto out;
+ }
+
+ *xrdm = libxl__malloc(gc,
+ *nr_entries * sizeof(xen_reserved_device_memory_t));
+ r = xc_reserved_device_memory_map(CTX->xch, flag, seg, bus, devfn,
+ *xrdm, nr_entries);
+ if (r)
+ rc = ERROR_FAIL;
+
+ out:
+ if (rc) {
+ *nr_entries = 0;
+ *xrdm = NULL;
+ LOG(ERROR, "Could not get reserved device memory maps.\n");
+ }
+ return rc;
+}
+
+/*
+ * Check whether there exists rdm hole in the specified memory range.
+ * Returns true if exists, else returns false.
+ */
+static bool overlaps_rdm(uint64_t start, uint64_t memsize,
+ uint64_t rdm_start, uint64_t rdm_size)
+{
+ return (start + memsize > rdm_start) && (start < rdm_start + rdm_size);
+}
+
+/*
+ * Check reported RDM regions and handle potential gfn conflicts according
+ * to user preferred policy.
+ *
+ * RDM can reside in address space beyond 4G theoretically, but we never
+ * see this in real world. So in order to avoid breaking highmem layout
+ * we don't solve highmem conflict. Note this means highmem rmrr could still
+ * be supported if no conflict.
+ *
+ * But in the case of lowmem, RDM probably scatter the whole RAM space.
+ * Especially multiple RDM entries would worsen this to lead a complicated
+ * memory layout. And then its hard to extend hvm_info_table{} to work
+ * hvmloader out. So here we're trying to figure out a simple solution to
+ * avoid breaking existing layout. So when a conflict occurs,
+ *
+ * #1. Above a predefined boundary (default 2G)
+ * - Move lowmem_end below reserved region to solve conflict;
+ *
+ * #2. Below a predefined boundary (default 2G)
+ * - Check strict/relaxed policy.
+ * "strict" policy leads to fail libxl.
+ * "relaxed" policy issue a warning message and also mask this entry
+ * INVALID to indicate we shouldn't expose this entry to hvmloader.
+ * Note when both policies are specified on a given region, the per-device
+ * policy should override the global policy.
+ */
+int libxl__domain_device_construct_rdm(libxl__gc *gc,
+ libxl_domain_config *d_config,
+ uint64_t rdm_mem_boundary,
+ struct xc_hvm_build_args *args)
+{
+ int i, j, conflict, rc;
+ struct xen_reserved_device_memory *xrdm = NULL;
+ uint32_t strategy = d_config->b_info.u.hvm.rdm.strategy;
+ uint16_t seg;
+ uint8_t bus, devfn;
+ uint64_t rdm_start, rdm_size;
+ uint64_t highmem_end = args->highmem_end ? args->highmem_end : (1ull<<32);
+
+ /* Might not expose rdm. */
+ if (strategy == LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_STRATEGY_IGNORE && !d_config->num_pcidevs)
+ return 0;
+
+ /* Query all RDM entries in this platform */
+ if (strategy == LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_STRATEGY_HOST) {
+ unsigned int nr_entries;
+
+ /* Collect all rdm info if exist. */
+ rc = libxl__xc_device_get_rdm(gc, PCI_DEV_RDM_ALL,
+ 0, 0, 0, &nr_entries, &xrdm);
+ if (rc)
+ goto out;
+ if (!nr_entries)
+ return 0;
+
+ assert(xrdm);
+
+ d_config->num_rdms = nr_entries;
+ d_config->rdms = libxl__realloc(NOGC, d_config->rdms,
+ d_config->num_rdms * sizeof(libxl_device_rdm));
+
+ for (i = 0; i < d_config->num_rdms; i++) {
+ d_config->rdms[i].start =
+ (uint64_t)xrdm[i].start_pfn << XC_PAGE_SHIFT;
+ d_config->rdms[i].size =
+ (uint64_t)xrdm[i].nr_pages << XC_PAGE_SHIFT;
+ d_config->rdms[i].flag = d_config->b_info.u.hvm.rdm.reserve;
+ }
+ } else
+ d_config->num_rdms = 0;
+
+ /* Query RDM entries per-device */
+ for (i = 0; i < d_config->num_pcidevs; i++) {
+ unsigned int nr_entries;
+ bool new = true;
+
+ seg = d_config->pcidevs[i].domain;
+ bus = d_config->pcidevs[i].bus;
+ devfn = PCI_DEVFN(d_config->pcidevs[i].dev, d_config->pcidevs[i].func);
+ nr_entries = 0;
+ rc = libxl__xc_device_get_rdm(gc, ~PCI_DEV_RDM_ALL,
+ seg, bus, devfn, &nr_entries, &xrdm);
+ if (rc)
+ goto out;
+ /* No RDM to associated with this device. */
+ if (!nr_entries)
+ continue;
+
+ assert(xrdm);
+
+ /*
+ * Need to check whether this entry is already saved in the array.
+ * This could come from two cases:
+ *
+ * - user may configure to get all RDMs in this platform, which
+ * is already queried before this point
+ * - or two assigned devices may share one RDM entry
+ *
+ * Different policies may be configured on the same RDM due to above
+ * two cases. But we don't allow to assign such a group devies right
+ * now so it doesn't come true in our case.
+ */
+ for (j = 0; j < d_config->num_rdms; j++) {
+ if (d_config->rdms[j].start ==
+ (uint64_t)xrdm[0].start_pfn << XC_PAGE_SHIFT)
+ {
+ /*
+ * So the per-device policy always override the global policy
+ * in this case.
+ */
+ d_config->rdms[j].flag = d_config->pcidevs[i].rdm_reserve;
+ new = false;
+ break;
+ }
+ }
+
+ if (new) {
+ d_config->num_rdms++;
+ d_config->rdms = libxl__realloc(NOGC, d_config->rdms,
+ d_config->num_rdms * sizeof(libxl_device_rdm));
+
+ d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms - 1].start =
+ (uint64_t)xrdm[0].start_pfn << XC_PAGE_SHIFT;
+ d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms - 1].size =
+ (uint64_t)xrdm[0].nr_pages << XC_PAGE_SHIFT;
+ d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms - 1].flag =
+ d_config->pcidevs[i].rdm_reserve;
+ }
+ }
+
+ /*
+ * Next step is to check and avoid potential conflict between RDM entries
+ * and guest RAM. To avoid intrusive impact to existing memory layout
+ * {lowmem, mmio, highmem} which is passed around various function blocks,
+ * below conflicts are not handled which are rare and handling them would
+ * lead to a more scattered layout:
+ * - RDM in highmem area (>4G)
+ * - RDM lower than a defined memory boundary (e.g. 2G)
+ * Otherwise for conflicts between boundary and 4G, we'll simply move lowmem
+ * end below reserved region to solve conflict.
+ *
+ * If a conflict is detected on a given RDM entry, an error will be
+ * returned if 'strict' policy is specified. Instead, if 'relaxed' policy
+ * specified, this conflict is treated just as a warning, but we mark this
+ * RDM entry as INVALID to indicate that this entry shouldn't be exposed
+ * to hvmloader.
+ *
+ * Firstly we should check the case of rdm < 4G because we may need to
+ * expand highmem_end.
+ */
+ for (i = 0; i < d_config->num_rdms; i++) {
+ rdm_start = d_config->rdms[i].start;
+ rdm_size = d_config->rdms[i].size;
+ conflict = overlaps_rdm(0, args->lowmem_end, rdm_start, rdm_size);
+
+ if (!conflict)
+ continue;
+
+ /* Just check if RDM > our memory boundary. */
+ if (rdm_start > rdm_mem_boundary) {
+ /*
+ * We will move downwards lowmem_end so we have to expand
+ * highmem_end.
+ */
+ highmem_end += (args->lowmem_end - rdm_start);
+ /* Now move downwards lowmem_end. */
+ args->lowmem_end = rdm_start;
+ }
+ }
+
+ /* Sync highmem_end. */
+ args->highmem_end = highmem_end;
+
+ /*
+ * Finally we can take same policy to check lowmem(< 2G) and
+ * highmem adjusted above.
+ */
+ for (i = 0; i < d_config->num_rdms; i++) {
+ rdm_start = d_config->rdms[i].start;
+ rdm_size = d_config->rdms[i].size;
+ /* Does this entry conflict with lowmem? */
+ conflict = overlaps_rdm(0, args->lowmem_end,
+ rdm_start, rdm_size);
+ /* Does this entry conflict with highmem? */
+ conflict |= overlaps_rdm((1ULL<<32),
+ args->highmem_end - (1ULL<<32),
+ rdm_start, rdm_size);
+
+ if (!conflict)
+ continue;
+
+ if (d_config->rdms[i].flag == LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_FLAG_STRICT) {
+ LOG(ERROR, "RDM conflict at 0x%lx.\n", d_config->rdms[i].start);
+ goto out;
+ } else {
+ LOG(WARN, "Ignoring RDM conflict at 0x%lx.\n",
+ d_config->rdms[i].start);
+
+ /*
+ * Then mask this INVALID to indicate we shouldn't expose this
+ * to hvmloader.
+ */
+ d_config->rdms[i].flag = LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_FLAG_INVALID;
+ }
+ }
+
+ return 0;
+
+ out:
+ return ERROR_FAIL;
+}
+
const libxl_vnc_info *libxl__dm_vnc(const libxl_domain_config *guest_config)
{
const libxl_vnc_info *vnc = NULL;
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_dom.c b/tools/libxl/libxl_dom.c
index bdc0465..f3c39a0 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_dom.c
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_dom.c
@@ -914,13 +914,20 @@ out:
}
int libxl__build_hvm(libxl__gc *gc, uint32_t domid,
- libxl_domain_build_info *info,
+ libxl_domain_config *d_config,
libxl__domain_build_state *state)
{
libxl_ctx *ctx = libxl__gc_owner(gc);
struct xc_hvm_build_args args = {};
int ret, rc = ERROR_FAIL;
uint64_t mmio_start, lowmem_end, highmem_end;
+ libxl_domain_build_info *const info = &d_config->b_info;
+ /*
+ * Currently we fix this as 2G to guarantte how to handle
+ * our rdm policy. But we'll provide a parameter to set
+ * this dynamically.
+ */
+ uint64_t rdm_mem_boundary = 0x80000000;
memset(&args, 0, sizeof(struct xc_hvm_build_args));
/* The params from the configuration file are in Mb, which are then
@@ -958,6 +965,14 @@ int libxl__build_hvm(libxl__gc *gc, uint32_t domid,
args.highmem_end = highmem_end;
args.mmio_start = mmio_start;
+ ret = libxl__domain_device_construct_rdm(gc, d_config,
+ rdm_mem_boundary,
+ &args);
+ if (ret) {
+ LOG(ERROR, "checking reserved device memory failed");
+ goto out;
+ }
+
if (info->num_vnuma_nodes != 0) {
int i;
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_internal.h b/tools/libxl/libxl_internal.h
index d397143..b4d8419 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_internal.h
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_internal.h
@@ -1057,7 +1057,7 @@ _hidden int libxl__build_post(libxl__gc *gc, uint32_t domid,
_hidden int libxl__build_pv(libxl__gc *gc, uint32_t domid,
libxl_domain_build_info *info, libxl__domain_build_state *state);
_hidden int libxl__build_hvm(libxl__gc *gc, uint32_t domid,
- libxl_domain_build_info *info,
+ libxl_domain_config *d_config,
libxl__domain_build_state *state);
_hidden int libxl__qemu_traditional_cmd(libxl__gc *gc, uint32_t domid,
@@ -1565,6 +1565,15 @@ _hidden int libxl__need_xenpv_qemu(libxl__gc *gc,
int nr_channels, libxl_device_channel *channels);
/*
+ * This function will fix reserved device memory conflict
+ * according to user's configuration.
+ */
+_hidden int libxl__domain_device_construct_rdm(libxl__gc *gc,
+ libxl_domain_config *d_config,
+ uint64_t rdm_mem_guard,
+ struct xc_hvm_build_args *args);
+
+/*
* This function will cause the whole libxl process to hang
* if the device model does not respond. It is deprecated.
*
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl b/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl
index 546686d..9f3f669 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl
@@ -562,6 +562,12 @@ libxl_device_pci = Struct("device_pci", [
("rdm_reserve", libxl_rdm_reserve_flag),
])
+libxl_device_rdm = Struct("device_rdm", [
+ ("start", uint64),
+ ("size", uint64),
+ ("flag", libxl_rdm_reserve_flag),
+ ])
+
libxl_device_dtdev = Struct("device_dtdev", [
("path", string),
])
@@ -592,6 +598,7 @@ libxl_domain_config = Struct("domain_config", [
("disks", Array(libxl_device_disk, "num_disks")),
("nics", Array(libxl_device_nic, "num_nics")),
("pcidevs", Array(libxl_device_pci, "num_pcidevs")),
+ ("rdms", Array(libxl_device_rdm, "num_rdms")),
("dtdevs", Array(libxl_device_dtdev, "num_dtdevs")),
("vfbs", Array(libxl_device_vfb, "num_vfbs")),
("vkbs", Array(libxl_device_vkb, "num_vkbs")),
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [v6][PATCH 12/16] tools: introduce a new parameter to set a predefined rdm boundary
2015-07-08 10:13 [v6][PATCH 00/16] Fix RMRR Tiejun Chen
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2015-07-08 10:13 ` [v6][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM Tiejun Chen
@ 2015-07-08 10:13 ` Tiejun Chen
2015-07-08 10:14 ` [v6][PATCH 13/16] libxl: construct e820 map with RDM information for HVM guest Tiejun Chen
` (3 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Tiejun Chen @ 2015-07-08 10:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xen-devel; +Cc: Wei Liu, Ian Jackson, Ian Campbell, Stefano Stabellini
Previously we always fix that predefined boundary as 2G to handle
conflict between memory and rdm, but now this predefined boundar
can be changes with the parameter "rdm_mem_boundary" in .cfg file.
CC: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>
CC: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
CC: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
CC: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Acked-by: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
---
v6:
* Nothing is changed.
v5:
* Make this variable "rdm_mem_boundary_memkb" specific to .hvm
v4:
* Separated from the previous patch to provide a parameter to set that
predefined boundary dynamically.
docs/man/xl.cfg.pod.5 | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
tools/libxl/libxl.h | 6 ++++++
tools/libxl/libxl_create.c | 4 ++++
tools/libxl/libxl_dom.c | 8 +-------
tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl | 1 +
tools/libxl/xl_cmdimpl.c | 3 +++
6 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/docs/man/xl.cfg.pod.5 b/docs/man/xl.cfg.pod.5
index 091e80d..7f65975 100644
--- a/docs/man/xl.cfg.pod.5
+++ b/docs/man/xl.cfg.pod.5
@@ -867,6 +867,28 @@ More information about Xen gfx_passthru feature is available
on the XenVGAPassthrough L<http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/XenVGAPassthrough>
wiki page.
+=item B<rdm_mem_boundary=MBYTES>
+
+Number of megabytes to set a boundary for checking rdm conflict.
+
+When RDM conflicts with RAM, RDM probably scatter the whole RAM space.
+Especially multiple RDM entries would worsen this to lead a complicated
+memory layout. So here we're trying to figure out a simple solution to
+avoid breaking existing layout. So when a conflict occurs,
+
+ #1. Above a predefined boundary
+ - move lowmem_end below reserved region to solve conflict;
+
+ #2. Below a predefined boundary
+ - Check strict/relaxed policy.
+ "strict" policy leads to fail libxl. Note when both policies
+ are specified on a given region, 'strict' is always preferred.
+ "relaxed" policy issue a warning message and also mask this
+ entry INVALID to indicate we shouldn't expose this entry to
+ hvmloader.
+
+Here the default is 2G.
+
=item B<dtdev=[ "DTDEV_PATH", "DTDEV_PATH", ... ]>
Specifies the host device tree nodes to passthrough to this guest. Each
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl.h b/tools/libxl/libxl.h
index a1c5d15..6f157c9 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl.h
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl.h
@@ -863,6 +863,12 @@ const char *libxl_defbool_to_string(libxl_defbool b);
#define LIBXL_TIMER_MODE_DEFAULT -1
#define LIBXL_MEMKB_DEFAULT ~0ULL
+/*
+ * We'd like to set a memory boundary to determine if we need to check
+ * any overlap with reserved device memory.
+ */
+#define LIBXL_RDM_MEM_BOUNDARY_MEMKB_DEFAULT (2048 * 1024)
+
#define LIBXL_MS_VM_GENID_LEN 16
typedef struct {
uint8_t bytes[LIBXL_MS_VM_GENID_LEN];
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_create.c b/tools/libxl/libxl_create.c
index 7a0c57d..38a8c3a 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_create.c
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_create.c
@@ -109,6 +109,10 @@ void libxl__rdm_setdefault(libxl__gc *gc, libxl_domain_build_info *b_info)
{
if (b_info->u.hvm.rdm.reserve == LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_FLAG_INVALID)
b_info->u.hvm.rdm.reserve = LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_FLAG_RELAXED;
+
+ if (b_info->u.hvm.rdm_mem_boundary_memkb == LIBXL_MEMKB_DEFAULT)
+ b_info->u.hvm.rdm_mem_boundary_memkb =
+ LIBXL_RDM_MEM_BOUNDARY_MEMKB_DEFAULT;
}
int libxl__domain_build_info_setdefault(libxl__gc *gc,
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_dom.c b/tools/libxl/libxl_dom.c
index f3c39a0..62ef120 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_dom.c
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_dom.c
@@ -922,12 +922,6 @@ int libxl__build_hvm(libxl__gc *gc, uint32_t domid,
int ret, rc = ERROR_FAIL;
uint64_t mmio_start, lowmem_end, highmem_end;
libxl_domain_build_info *const info = &d_config->b_info;
- /*
- * Currently we fix this as 2G to guarantte how to handle
- * our rdm policy. But we'll provide a parameter to set
- * this dynamically.
- */
- uint64_t rdm_mem_boundary = 0x80000000;
memset(&args, 0, sizeof(struct xc_hvm_build_args));
/* The params from the configuration file are in Mb, which are then
@@ -966,7 +960,7 @@ int libxl__build_hvm(libxl__gc *gc, uint32_t domid,
args.mmio_start = mmio_start;
ret = libxl__domain_device_construct_rdm(gc, d_config,
- rdm_mem_boundary,
+ info->u.hvm.rdm_mem_boundary_memkb*1024,
&args);
if (ret) {
LOG(ERROR, "checking reserved device memory failed");
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl b/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl
index 9f3f669..a936b8b 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl
@@ -484,6 +484,7 @@ libxl_domain_build_info = Struct("domain_build_info",[
("ms_vm_genid", libxl_ms_vm_genid),
("serial_list", libxl_string_list),
("rdm", libxl_rdm_reserve),
+ ("rdm_mem_boundary_memkb", MemKB),
])),
("pv", Struct(None, [("kernel", string),
("slack_memkb", MemKB),
diff --git a/tools/libxl/xl_cmdimpl.c b/tools/libxl/xl_cmdimpl.c
index c858068..dfb50d6 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/xl_cmdimpl.c
+++ b/tools/libxl/xl_cmdimpl.c
@@ -1519,6 +1519,9 @@ static void parse_config_data(const char *config_source,
exit(1);
}
}
+
+ if (!xlu_cfg_get_long (config, "rdm_mem_boundary", &l, 0))
+ b_info->u.hvm.rdm_mem_boundary_memkb = l * 1024;
break;
case LIBXL_DOMAIN_TYPE_PV:
{
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [v6][PATCH 13/16] libxl: construct e820 map with RDM information for HVM guest
2015-07-08 10:13 [v6][PATCH 00/16] Fix RMRR Tiejun Chen
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2015-07-08 10:13 ` [v6][PATCH 12/16] tools: introduce a new parameter to set a predefined rdm boundary Tiejun Chen
@ 2015-07-08 10:14 ` Tiejun Chen
2015-07-08 10:14 ` [v6][PATCH 14/16] xen/vtd: enable USB device assignment Tiejun Chen
` (2 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Tiejun Chen @ 2015-07-08 10:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xen-devel; +Cc: Wei Liu, Ian Jackson, Ian Campbell, Stefano Stabellini
Here we'll construct a basic guest e820 table via
XENMEM_set_memory_map. This table includes lowmem, highmem
and RDMs if they exist, and hvmloader would need this info
later.
Note this guest e820 table would be same as before if the
platform has no any RDM or we disable RDM (by default).
CC: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>
CC: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
CC: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
CC: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Acked-by: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
---
v6:
* Nothing is changed.
v5:
* Rephrase patch's short log
* Make libxl__domain_construct_e820() hidden
v4:
* Use goto style error handling.
* Instead of NOGC, we shoud use libxl__malloc(gc,XXX) to allocate local e820.
tools/libxl/libxl_dom.c | 5 +++
tools/libxl/libxl_internal.h | 24 +++++++++++++
tools/libxl/libxl_x86.c | 83 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3 files changed, 112 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_dom.c b/tools/libxl/libxl_dom.c
index 62ef120..41da479 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_dom.c
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_dom.c
@@ -1004,6 +1004,11 @@ int libxl__build_hvm(libxl__gc *gc, uint32_t domid,
goto out;
}
+ if (libxl__domain_construct_e820(gc, d_config, domid, &args)) {
+ LOG(ERROR, "setting domain memory map failed");
+ goto out;
+ }
+
ret = hvm_build_set_params(ctx->xch, domid, info, state->store_port,
&state->store_mfn, state->console_port,
&state->console_mfn, state->store_domid,
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_internal.h b/tools/libxl/libxl_internal.h
index b4d8419..a50449a 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_internal.h
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_internal.h
@@ -3794,6 +3794,30 @@ static inline void libxl__update_config_vtpm(libxl__gc *gc,
*/
void libxl__bitmap_copy_best_effort(libxl__gc *gc, libxl_bitmap *dptr,
const libxl_bitmap *sptr);
+
+/*
+ * Here we're just trying to set these kinds of e820 mappings:
+ *
+ * #1. Low memory region
+ *
+ * Low RAM starts at least from 1M to make sure all standard regions
+ * of the PC memory map, like BIOS, VGA memory-mapped I/O and vgabios,
+ * have enough space.
+ * Note: Those stuffs below 1M are still constructed with multiple
+ * e820 entries by hvmloader. At this point we don't change anything.
+ *
+ * #2. RDM region if it exists
+ *
+ * #3. High memory region if it exists
+ *
+ * Note: these regions are not overlapping since we already check
+ * to adjust them. Please refer to libxl__domain_device_construct_rdm().
+ */
+_hidden int libxl__domain_construct_e820(libxl__gc *gc,
+ libxl_domain_config *d_config,
+ uint32_t domid,
+ struct xc_hvm_build_args *args);
+
#endif
/*
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_x86.c b/tools/libxl/libxl_x86.c
index ed2bd38..be297b2 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_x86.c
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_x86.c
@@ -438,6 +438,89 @@ int libxl__arch_domain_map_irq(libxl__gc *gc, uint32_t domid, int irq)
}
/*
+ * Here we're just trying to set these kinds of e820 mappings:
+ *
+ * #1. Low memory region
+ *
+ * Low RAM starts at least from 1M to make sure all standard regions
+ * of the PC memory map, like BIOS, VGA memory-mapped I/O and vgabios,
+ * have enough space.
+ * Note: Those stuffs below 1M are still constructed with multiple
+ * e820 entries by hvmloader. At this point we don't change anything.
+ *
+ * #2. RDM region if it exists
+ *
+ * #3. High memory region if it exists
+ *
+ * Note: these regions are not overlapping since we already check
+ * to adjust them. Please refer to libxl__domain_device_construct_rdm().
+ */
+#define GUEST_LOW_MEM_START_DEFAULT 0x100000
+int libxl__domain_construct_e820(libxl__gc *gc,
+ libxl_domain_config *d_config,
+ uint32_t domid,
+ struct xc_hvm_build_args *args)
+{
+ int rc = 0;
+ unsigned int nr = 0, i;
+ /* We always own at least one lowmem entry. */
+ unsigned int e820_entries = 1;
+ struct e820entry *e820 = NULL;
+ uint64_t highmem_size =
+ args->highmem_end ? args->highmem_end - (1ull << 32) : 0;
+
+ /* Add all rdm entries. */
+ for (i = 0; i < d_config->num_rdms; i++)
+ if (d_config->rdms[i].flag != LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_FLAG_INVALID)
+ e820_entries++;
+
+
+ /* If we should have a highmem range. */
+ if (highmem_size)
+ e820_entries++;
+
+ if (e820_entries >= E820MAX) {
+ LOG(ERROR, "Ooops! Too many entries in the memory map!\n");
+ rc = ERROR_INVAL;
+ goto out;
+ }
+
+ e820 = libxl__malloc(gc, sizeof(struct e820entry) * e820_entries);
+
+ /* Low memory */
+ e820[nr].addr = GUEST_LOW_MEM_START_DEFAULT;
+ e820[nr].size = args->lowmem_end - GUEST_LOW_MEM_START_DEFAULT;
+ e820[nr].type = E820_RAM;
+ nr++;
+
+ /* RDM mapping */
+ for (i = 0; i < d_config->num_rdms; i++) {
+ if (d_config->rdms[i].flag == LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_FLAG_INVALID)
+ continue;
+
+ e820[nr].addr = d_config->rdms[i].start;
+ e820[nr].size = d_config->rdms[i].size;
+ e820[nr].type = E820_RESERVED;
+ nr++;
+ }
+
+ /* High memory */
+ if (highmem_size) {
+ e820[nr].addr = ((uint64_t)1 << 32);
+ e820[nr].size = highmem_size;
+ e820[nr].type = E820_RAM;
+ }
+
+ if (xc_domain_set_memory_map(CTX->xch, domid, e820, e820_entries) != 0) {
+ rc = ERROR_FAIL;
+ goto out;
+ }
+
+out:
+ return rc;
+}
+
+/*
* Local variables:
* mode: C
* c-basic-offset: 4
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [v6][PATCH 14/16] xen/vtd: enable USB device assignment
2015-07-08 10:13 [v6][PATCH 00/16] Fix RMRR Tiejun Chen
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2015-07-08 10:14 ` [v6][PATCH 13/16] libxl: construct e820 map with RDM information for HVM guest Tiejun Chen
@ 2015-07-08 10:14 ` Tiejun Chen
2015-07-08 10:14 ` [v6][PATCH 15/16] xen/vtd: prevent from assign the device with shared rmrr Tiejun Chen
2015-07-08 10:14 ` [v6][PATCH 16/16] tools: parse to enable new rdm policy parameters Tiejun Chen
15 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Tiejun Chen @ 2015-07-08 10:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xen-devel; +Cc: Yang Zhang, Kevin Tian
USB RMRR may conflict with guest BIOS region. In such case, identity
mapping setup is simply skipped in previous implementation. Now we
can handle this scenario cleanly with new policy mechanism so previous
hack code can be removed now.
CC: Yang Zhang <yang.z.zhang@intel.com>
CC: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
Acked-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
---
v6:
* Nothing is changed.
v5:
* Nothing is changed.
v4:
* Refine the patch head description
xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/dmar.h | 1 -
xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c | 11 ++---------
xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/utils.c | 7 -------
3 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
diff --git a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/dmar.h b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/dmar.h
index af1feef..af205f5 100644
--- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/dmar.h
+++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/dmar.h
@@ -129,7 +129,6 @@ do { \
int vtd_hw_check(void);
void disable_pmr(struct iommu *iommu);
-int is_usb_device(u16 seg, u8 bus, u8 devfn);
int is_igd_drhd(struct acpi_drhd_unit *drhd);
#endif /* _DMAR_H_ */
diff --git a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
index 56f5911..c833290 100644
--- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
+++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
@@ -2245,11 +2245,9 @@ static int reassign_device_ownership(
/*
* If the device belongs to the hardware domain, and it has RMRR, don't
* remove it from the hardware domain, because BIOS may use RMRR at
- * booting time. Also account for the special casing of USB below (in
- * intel_iommu_assign_device()).
+ * booting time.
*/
- if ( !is_hardware_domain(source) &&
- !is_usb_device(pdev->seg, pdev->bus, pdev->devfn) )
+ if ( !is_hardware_domain(source) )
{
const struct acpi_rmrr_unit *rmrr;
u16 bdf;
@@ -2303,13 +2301,8 @@ static int intel_iommu_assign_device(
if ( ret )
return ret;
- /* FIXME: Because USB RMRR conflicts with guest bios region,
- * ignore USB RMRR temporarily.
- */
seg = pdev->seg;
bus = pdev->bus;
- if ( is_usb_device(seg, bus, pdev->devfn) )
- return 0;
/* Setup rmrr identity mapping */
for_each_rmrr_device( rmrr, bdf, i )
diff --git a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/utils.c b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/utils.c
index bd14c02..b8a077f 100644
--- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/utils.c
+++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/utils.c
@@ -29,13 +29,6 @@
#include "extern.h"
#include <asm/io_apic.h>
-int is_usb_device(u16 seg, u8 bus, u8 devfn)
-{
- u16 class = pci_conf_read16(seg, bus, PCI_SLOT(devfn), PCI_FUNC(devfn),
- PCI_CLASS_DEVICE);
- return (class == 0xc03);
-}
-
/* Disable vt-d protected memory registers. */
void disable_pmr(struct iommu *iommu)
{
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [v6][PATCH 15/16] xen/vtd: prevent from assign the device with shared rmrr
2015-07-08 10:13 [v6][PATCH 00/16] Fix RMRR Tiejun Chen
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2015-07-08 10:14 ` [v6][PATCH 14/16] xen/vtd: enable USB device assignment Tiejun Chen
@ 2015-07-08 10:14 ` Tiejun Chen
2015-07-08 10:14 ` [v6][PATCH 16/16] tools: parse to enable new rdm policy parameters Tiejun Chen
15 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Tiejun Chen @ 2015-07-08 10:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xen-devel; +Cc: Yang Zhang, Kevin Tian
Currently we're intending to cover this kind of devices
with shared RMRR simply since the case of shared RMRR is
a rare case according to our previous experiences. But
late we can group these devices which shared rmrr, and
then allow all devices within a group to be assigned to
same domain.
CC: Yang Zhang <yang.z.zhang@intel.com>
CC: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
Acked-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
---
v6:
* Nothing is changed.
v5:
* Nothing is changed.
v4:
* Refine one code comment.
xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
index c833290..095fb1d 100644
--- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
+++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
@@ -2297,13 +2297,39 @@ static int intel_iommu_assign_device(
if ( list_empty(&acpi_drhd_units) )
return -ENODEV;
+ seg = pdev->seg;
+ bus = pdev->bus;
+ /*
+ * In rare cases one given rmrr is shared by multiple devices but
+ * obviously this would put the security of a system at risk. So
+ * we should prevent from this sort of device assignment.
+ *
+ * TODO: in the future we can introduce group device assignment
+ * interface to make sure devices sharing RMRR are assigned to the
+ * same domain together.
+ */
+ for_each_rmrr_device( rmrr, bdf, i )
+ {
+ if ( rmrr->segment == seg &&
+ PCI_BUS(bdf) == bus &&
+ PCI_DEVFN2(bdf) == devfn )
+ {
+ if ( rmrr->scope.devices_cnt > 1 )
+ {
+ printk(XENLOG_G_ERR VTDPREFIX
+ " cannot assign %04x:%02x:%02x.%u"
+ " with shared RMRR for Dom%d.\n",
+ seg, bus, PCI_SLOT(devfn), PCI_FUNC(devfn),
+ d->domain_id);
+ return -EPERM;
+ }
+ }
+ }
+
ret = reassign_device_ownership(hardware_domain, d, devfn, pdev);
if ( ret )
return ret;
- seg = pdev->seg;
- bus = pdev->bus;
-
/* Setup rmrr identity mapping */
for_each_rmrr_device( rmrr, bdf, i )
{
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [v6][PATCH 16/16] tools: parse to enable new rdm policy parameters
2015-07-08 10:13 [v6][PATCH 00/16] Fix RMRR Tiejun Chen
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2015-07-08 10:14 ` [v6][PATCH 15/16] xen/vtd: prevent from assign the device with shared rmrr Tiejun Chen
@ 2015-07-08 10:14 ` Tiejun Chen
15 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Tiejun Chen @ 2015-07-08 10:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xen-devel; +Cc: Wei Liu, Ian Jackson, Ian Campbell, Stefano Stabellini
This patch parses to enable user configurable parameters to specify
RDM resource and according policies,
Global RDM parameter:
rdm = "strategy=host,reserve=strict/relaxed"
Per-device RDM parameter:
pci = [ 'sbdf, rdm_reserve=strict/relaxed' ]
Default per-device RDM policy is 'strict', while default global RDM policy
is 'relaxed'. When both policies are specified on a given region, 'strict' is
always preferred.
CC: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>
CC: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
CC: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
CC: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Acked-by: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
---
v6:
* Just sync those renames introduced by patch #10.
v5:
* Need a rebase after we make all rdm variables specific to .hvm.
* Like other pci option, the per-device policy always follows
the global policy by default.
v4:
* Separated from current patch #11 to parse/enable our rdm policy parameters
since its make a lot sense and these stuffs are specific to xl/libxlu.
tools/libxl/libxlu_pci.c | 90 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
tools/libxl/libxlutil.h | 4 +++
tools/libxl/xl_cmdimpl.c | 13 +++++++
3 files changed, 107 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxlu_pci.c b/tools/libxl/libxlu_pci.c
index 26fb143..098ad36 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxlu_pci.c
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxlu_pci.c
@@ -42,6 +42,9 @@ static int pcidev_struct_fill(libxl_device_pci *pcidev, unsigned int domain,
#define STATE_OPTIONS_K 6
#define STATE_OPTIONS_V 7
#define STATE_TERMINAL 8
+#define STATE_TYPE 9
+#define STATE_RDM_TYPE 10
+#define STATE_RESERVE_FLAG 11
int xlu_pci_parse_bdf(XLU_Config *cfg, libxl_device_pci *pcidev, const char *str)
{
unsigned state = STATE_DOMAIN;
@@ -143,6 +146,17 @@ int xlu_pci_parse_bdf(XLU_Config *cfg, libxl_device_pci *pcidev, const char *str
pcidev->permissive = atoi(tok);
}else if ( !strcmp(optkey, "seize") ) {
pcidev->seize = atoi(tok);
+ }else if ( !strcmp(optkey, "rdm_reserve") ) {
+ if ( !strcmp(tok, "strict") ) {
+ pcidev->rdm_reserve = LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_FLAG_STRICT;
+ } else if ( !strcmp(tok, "relaxed") ) {
+ pcidev->rdm_reserve = LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_FLAG_RELAXED;
+ } else {
+ XLU__PCI_ERR(cfg, "%s is not an valid PCI RDM property"
+ " flag: 'strict' or 'relaxed'.",
+ tok);
+ goto parse_error;
+ }
}else{
XLU__PCI_ERR(cfg, "Unknown PCI BDF option: %s", optkey);
}
@@ -167,6 +181,82 @@ parse_error:
return ERROR_INVAL;
}
+int xlu_rdm_parse(XLU_Config *cfg, libxl_rdm_reserve *rdm, const char *str)
+{
+ unsigned state = STATE_TYPE;
+ char *buf2, *tok, *ptr, *end;
+
+ if (NULL == (buf2 = ptr = strdup(str)))
+ return ERROR_NOMEM;
+
+ for (tok = ptr, end = ptr + strlen(ptr) + 1; ptr < end; ptr++) {
+ switch(state) {
+ case STATE_TYPE:
+ if (*ptr == '=') {
+ state = STATE_RDM_TYPE;
+ *ptr = '\0';
+ if (strcmp(tok, "strategy")) {
+ XLU__PCI_ERR(cfg, "Unknown RDM state option: %s", tok);
+ goto parse_error;
+ }
+ tok = ptr + 1;
+ }
+ break;
+ case STATE_RDM_TYPE:
+ if (*ptr == '\0' || *ptr == ',') {
+ state = STATE_RESERVE_FLAG;
+ *ptr = '\0';
+ if (!strcmp(tok, "host")) {
+ rdm->strategy = LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_STRATEGY_HOST;
+ } else {
+ XLU__PCI_ERR(cfg, "Unknown RDM type option: %s", tok);
+ goto parse_error;
+ }
+ tok = ptr + 1;
+ }
+ break;
+ case STATE_RESERVE_FLAG:
+ if (*ptr == '=') {
+ state = STATE_OPTIONS_V;
+ *ptr = '\0';
+ if (strcmp(tok, "reserve")) {
+ XLU__PCI_ERR(cfg, "Unknown RDM property value: %s", tok);
+ goto parse_error;
+ }
+ tok = ptr + 1;
+ }
+ break;
+ case STATE_OPTIONS_V:
+ if (*ptr == ',' || *ptr == '\0') {
+ state = STATE_TERMINAL;
+ *ptr = '\0';
+ if (!strcmp(tok, "strict")) {
+ rdm->reserve = LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_FLAG_STRICT;
+ } else if (!strcmp(tok, "relaxed")) {
+ rdm->reserve = LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_FLAG_RELAXED;
+ } else {
+ XLU__PCI_ERR(cfg, "Unknown RDM property flag value: %s",
+ tok);
+ goto parse_error;
+ }
+ tok = ptr + 1;
+ }
+ default:
+ break;
+ }
+ }
+
+ free(buf2);
+
+ if (tok != ptr || state != STATE_TERMINAL)
+ goto parse_error;
+
+ return 0;
+
+parse_error:
+ return ERROR_INVAL;
+}
+
/*
* Local variables:
* mode: C
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxlutil.h b/tools/libxl/libxlutil.h
index 989605a..e81b644 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxlutil.h
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxlutil.h
@@ -106,6 +106,10 @@ int xlu_disk_parse(XLU_Config *cfg, int nspecs, const char *const *specs,
*/
int xlu_pci_parse_bdf(XLU_Config *cfg, libxl_device_pci *pcidev, const char *str);
+/*
+ * RDM parsing
+ */
+int xlu_rdm_parse(XLU_Config *cfg, libxl_rdm_reserve *rdm, const char *str);
/*
* Vif rate parsing.
diff --git a/tools/libxl/xl_cmdimpl.c b/tools/libxl/xl_cmdimpl.c
index dfb50d6..2aedec9 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/xl_cmdimpl.c
+++ b/tools/libxl/xl_cmdimpl.c
@@ -1923,6 +1923,14 @@ skip_vfb:
xlu_cfg_get_defbool(config, "e820_host", &b_info->u.pv.e820_host, 0);
}
+ if (!xlu_cfg_get_string(config, "rdm", &buf, 0)) {
+ libxl_rdm_reserve rdm;
+ if (!xlu_rdm_parse(config, &rdm, buf)) {
+ b_info->u.hvm.rdm.strategy = rdm.strategy;
+ b_info->u.hvm.rdm.reserve = rdm.reserve;
+ }
+ }
+
if (!xlu_cfg_get_list (config, "pci", &pcis, 0, 0)) {
d_config->num_pcidevs = 0;
d_config->pcidevs = NULL;
@@ -1937,6 +1945,11 @@ skip_vfb:
pcidev->power_mgmt = pci_power_mgmt;
pcidev->permissive = pci_permissive;
pcidev->seize = pci_seize;
+ /*
+ * Like other pci option, the per-device policy always follows
+ * the global policy by default.
+ */
+ pcidev->rdm_reserve = b_info->u.hvm.rdm.reserve;
if (!xlu_pci_parse_bdf(config, pcidev, buf))
d_config->num_pcidevs++;
}
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: [v6][PATCH 10/16] tools: introduce some new parameters to set rdm policy
2015-07-08 10:13 ` [v6][PATCH 10/16] tools: introduce some new parameters to set rdm policy Tiejun Chen
@ 2015-07-08 11:47 ` Ian Jackson
2015-07-08 12:43 ` Chen, Tiejun
0 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: Ian Jackson @ 2015-07-08 11:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tiejun Chen; +Cc: Stefano Stabellini, Wei Liu, Ian Campbell, xen-devel
Tiejun Chen writes ("[v6][PATCH 10/16] tools: introduce some new parameters to set rdm policy"):
> This patch introduces user configurable parameters to specify RDM
> resource and according policies,
Thanks.
I appreciate that I have come to this review late. While I have found
the review conversation quite unsatisfactory, I don't really feel that
I can reject the patch series pending better answers to my questions.
Instead, I feel that I need to make a set of decisions which will
avoid my review comments being a blocker for this series. After
discussing matters with the other tools maintainers, I have concluded:
* On the question of whether the default should be `strategy=host' or
`strategy=none':
I still don't understand what is going on here and I am frustrated
because I don't feel that the replies I have been getting are
actually answers to my questions. They seem to be answers to
different questions.
However, the patch series with `strategy=none' is strictly less of a
change to the codebase than with `stategy=host' and it is easy to
change defaults later. It would be perverse to block this
functionality on the grounds that it is not enabled strongly enough
by default.
Therefore, despite the fact that after several rounds of emails I
still do not have a convincing explanation, I am going to drop this
line of questioning.
* On the question of the documentation: The documentation is
unfortunately a poor guide to a user. Many of my questions were
prompted by reading the documentation. Having gone several rounds
of emails I still do not know enough to suggest improvements.
In my view the effect of the poor documentation will be that most
users will simply ignore the whole feature as too confusing.
(Unless they have somehow divined that they are having RDM trouble
in which case they may flail at random experimenting with various
options.)
Again, the effect therefore is that knowledgeable users might be
able to do better, but for most users this is just yet another piece
of docs for some feature they don't want to use.
While I'm not entirely comfortable with accepting documentation
which reduces the overall readability and usefulness of the manual,
I think this is a relatively minor objection which I am prepared to
overlook.
Of course there is some opportunity for improving the documentation
during the freeze.
* On the question of option naming, `strategy' vs `type':
`type' was definitely wrong. It may be that a better name than
`strategy' would be correct. This depends on the contemplated
direction for future expansion.
Sadly, I do not expect that further discussion is going to
illuminate this further. `strategy' will do.
* On the question of option naming, `none' vs `ignore':
I asked whether the submitter agreed that `none' should be renamed
`ignore'. I have not received a clear opinion. Instead, the
submitter indicated a willingness to change this on my request. the
latest resubmission just did the rename.
The purpose of asking `do you agree', in this way, is to try to help
the submitters and the maintainers come up with the best answers.
Note that it is a fundamental assumption of the patch review process
that the submitter understands the design and implementation
decisions embodied in the patchset. The submitter needs to be able
to respond to suggestions with evaluations, not simply acquiescence.
(If it happens that some of the decisions were made by someone else,
the submitter needs to 1. state this clearly where relevant and
2. either consult the designers/authors, or if they aren't
available, reverse-engineer the intent.)
In the absence of a clear statement of the submitter's own opinion,
I remain doubtful that this rename was correct. But, I don't think
it important enough to make any more fuss about.
* On the question of option naming, the `reserve='.
Ian Campbell points out that the API structure for `[rdm_]reserve'
as submitted is anomalous. I agree with him. The existing
API and config file arrangements are rather too confusing.
Please change `reserve' to `policy', in the following places:
* In the xl rdm config parsing, `reserve=' should be `policy='.
* In the xl pci config parsing, `rdm_reserve=' should be
`rdm_policy='.
* The type `libxl_rdm_reserve_flag' should be `libxl_rdm_policy'.
* The field name `reserve' in `libxl_rdm_reserve' should be
`policy'.
I think that with these changes I will be able to ack the remaining
tools parts of this series, and drop my objections to the parts acked
by Wei.
I can't speak for the hypervisor side, which I haven't really looked
at.
Ian.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: [v6][PATCH 10/16] tools: introduce some new parameters to set rdm policy
2015-07-08 11:47 ` Ian Jackson
@ 2015-07-08 12:43 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-08 13:20 ` Wei Liu
2015-07-08 13:27 ` Ian Jackson
0 siblings, 2 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Chen, Tiejun @ 2015-07-08 12:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ian Jackson; +Cc: Stefano Stabellini, Wei Liu, Ian Campbell, xen-devel
On 2015/7/8 19:47, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Tiejun Chen writes ("[v6][PATCH 10/16] tools: introduce some new parameters to set rdm policy"):
>> This patch introduces user configurable parameters to specify RDM
>> resource and according policies,
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> I appreciate that I have come to this review late. While I have found
> the review conversation quite unsatisfactory, I don't really feel that
> I can reject the patch series pending better answers to my questions.
>
> Instead, I feel that I need to make a set of decisions which will
> avoid my review comments being a blocker for this series. After
> discussing matters with the other tools maintainers, I have concluded:
>
>
> * On the question of whether the default should be `strategy=host' or
> `strategy=none':
>
> I still don't understand what is going on here and I am frustrated
> because I don't feel that the replies I have been getting are
> actually answers to my questions. They seem to be answers to
> different questions.
>
> However, the patch series with `strategy=none' is strictly less of a
> change to the codebase than with `stategy=host' and it is easy to
> change defaults later. It would be perverse to block this
> functionality on the grounds that it is not enabled strongly enough
> by default.
>
> Therefore, despite the fact that after several rounds of emails I
> still do not have a convincing explanation, I am going to drop this
> line of questioning.
Maybe I can't answer everything as you expected.
The most important reason why we set 'strategy=none' is that, the RDM
issue rarely happens in real world, and especially there are four
conditions to trigger this issue.
#1. RDM should exist on this platform
#2. The associated device is passed through
Note so far, just IGD needs this RDM in the real world as we know.
#3. RDM regions should overlap normal RAM in a VM
Its not always true.
#4. The associated device is really accessing RDM.
Just Windows IGD driver is trying to access this. Instead, Linux IGD
driver never walk into this.
So we don't like to setting as "host" to concern this sort of small
probability event.
>
>
> * On the question of the documentation: The documentation is
> unfortunately a poor guide to a user. Many of my questions were
> prompted by reading the documentation. Having gone several rounds
> of emails I still do not know enough to suggest improvements.
>
> In my view the effect of the poor documentation will be that most
> users will simply ignore the whole feature as too confusing.
> (Unless they have somehow divined that they are having RDM trouble
> in which case they may flail at random experimenting with various
> options.)
>
> Again, the effect therefore is that knowledgeable users might be
> able to do better, but for most users this is just yet another piece
> of docs for some feature they don't want to use.
>
> While I'm not entirely comfortable with accepting documentation
> which reduces the overall readability and usefulness of the manual,
> I think this is a relatively minor objection which I am prepared to
> overlook.
I agree doc is very important to user. And I have to admit I need to
improve this definitely. But if you think I don't write them very well,
I think we can have a better way to help me do this. Please just list
all key points as question pattern like this,
#1. Definition
#2. Goal
#3. Default setting
#4. How to use
#5. Risk
#6. A good example
...
At least I can try to first cover all necessary information, and then
refine each sentence.
>
> Of course there is some opportunity for improving the documentation
> during the freeze.
>
>
> * On the question of option naming, `strategy' vs `type':
>
> `type' was definitely wrong. It may be that a better name than
> `strategy' would be correct. This depends on the contemplated
> direction for future expansion.
>
> Sadly, I do not expect that further discussion is going to
> illuminate this further. `strategy' will do.
>
>
> * On the question of option naming, `none' vs `ignore':
>
> I asked whether the submitter agreed that `none' should be renamed
> `ignore'. I have not received a clear opinion. Instead, the
> submitter indicated a willingness to change this on my request. the
> latest resubmission just did the rename.
I think replied to you on IRC. I just thought they're optional and
reasonable, so do you mean this sort of answer is not good to you? But
in some cases its not easy to select which one is best.
>
> The purpose of asking `do you agree', in this way, is to try to help
> the submitters and the maintainers come up with the best answers.
>
> Note that it is a fundamental assumption of the patch review process
> that the submitter understands the design and implementation
> decisions embodied in the patchset. The submitter needs to be able
> to respond to suggestions with evaluations, not simply acquiescence.
> (If it happens that some of the decisions were made by someone else,
> the submitter needs to 1. state this clearly where relevant and
> 2. either consult the designers/authors, or if they aren't
> available, reverse-engineer the intent.)
>
> In the absence of a clear statement of the submitter's own opinion,
> I remain doubtful that this rename was correct. But, I don't think
> it important enough to make any more fuss about.
>
>
> * On the question of option naming, the `reserve='.
>
> Ian Campbell points out that the API structure for `[rdm_]reserve'
> as submitted is anomalous. I agree with him. The existing
> API and config file arrangements are rather too confusing.
>
> Please change `reserve' to `policy', in the following places:
>
> * In the xl rdm config parsing, `reserve=' should be `policy='.
> * In the xl pci config parsing, `rdm_reserve=' should be
> `rdm_policy='.
> * The type `libxl_rdm_reserve_flag' should be `libxl_rdm_policy'.
> * The field name `reserve' in `libxl_rdm_reserve' should be
> `policy'.
>
Yes, we need to do this better. But this kind of argument really
shouldn't finish just one week.
Just please go back to look at all emails started from our design
(2014/12/26) to this revision, I believe all tool maintainers are CCed.
And especially, these option name were changed a lot of times...
"flag" -> "reserve" -> "policy"
"force" -> "strict"
....
Why didn't you guys say anything so long time? If you guys tried to give
us this kind of comments or suggestions as early as possible, I believe
you should can get that expected answer to your question.
But now this make both of us frustrated.
Thanks
Tiejun
>
> I think that with these changes I will be able to ack the remaining
> tools parts of this series, and drop my objections to the parts acked
> by Wei.
>
> I can't speak for the hypervisor side, which I haven't really looked
> at.
>
> Ian.
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: [v6][PATCH 10/16] tools: introduce some new parameters to set rdm policy
2015-07-08 12:43 ` Chen, Tiejun
@ 2015-07-08 13:20 ` Wei Liu
2015-07-08 13:27 ` Ian Jackson
1 sibling, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Wei Liu @ 2015-07-08 13:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chen, Tiejun
Cc: Wei Liu, Stefano Stabellini, Ian Jackson, Ian Campbell, xen-devel
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 08:43:41PM +0800, Chen, Tiejun wrote:
> On 2015/7/8 19:47, Ian Jackson wrote:
[...]
> >* On the question of option naming, the `reserve='.
> >
> > Ian Campbell points out that the API structure for `[rdm_]reserve'
> > as submitted is anomalous. I agree with him. The existing
> > API and config file arrangements are rather too confusing.
> >
> > Please change `reserve' to `policy', in the following places:
> >
> > * In the xl rdm config parsing, `reserve=' should be `policy='.
> > * In the xl pci config parsing, `rdm_reserve=' should be
> > `rdm_policy='.
> > * The type `libxl_rdm_reserve_flag' should be `libxl_rdm_policy'.
> > * The field name `reserve' in `libxl_rdm_reserve' should be
> > `policy'.
> >
>
> Yes, we need to do this better. But this kind of argument really shouldn't
> finish just one week.
>
> Just please go back to look at all emails started from our design
> (2014/12/26) to this revision, I believe all tool maintainers are CCed. And
> especially, these option name were changed a lot of times...
>
> "flag" -> "reserve" -> "policy"
> "force" -> "strict"
> ....
>
> Why didn't you guys say anything so long time? If you guys tried to give us
> this kind of comments or suggestions as early as possible, I believe you
> should can get that expected answer to your question.
>
Just to be clear, we do appreciate the effort you put into this work.
Ian Campbell is happy with your clarification on what to expose on xl
level. Ian Jackson doesn't want to block this series on the ground of
documentations and default values. We (tools maintainers) are also
convinced that the design is good enough for the current state of
affairs.
Renaming these fields and options is the only blocker for this series
to be accepted for 4.6 as far as tools maintainers concern. I understand
the frustration but renaming would not be too much work.
I can't speak for hypervisor maintainers though, they have their merits
on hypervisor patches.
Wei.
> But now this make both of us frustrated.
>
> Thanks
> Tiejun
>
> >
> >I think that with these changes I will be able to ack the remaining
> >tools parts of this series, and drop my objections to the parts acked
> >by Wei.
> >
> >I can't speak for the hypervisor side, which I haven't really looked
> >at.
> >
> >Ian.
> >
> >
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: [v6][PATCH 10/16] tools: introduce some new parameters to set rdm policy
2015-07-08 12:43 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-08 13:20 ` Wei Liu
@ 2015-07-08 13:27 ` Ian Jackson
2015-07-08 14:46 ` Chen, Tiejun
1 sibling, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: Ian Jackson @ 2015-07-08 13:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chen, Tiejun; +Cc: Stefano Stabellini, Wei Liu, Ian Campbell, xen-devel
Chen, Tiejun writes ("Re: [v6][PATCH 10/16] tools: introduce some new parameters to set rdm policy"):
> On 2015/7/8 19:47, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I appreciate that I have come to this review late. While I have found
> > the review conversation quite unsatisfactory, I don't really feel that
> > I can reject the patch series pending better answers to my questions.
> >
> > Instead, I feel that I need to make a set of decisions which will
> > avoid my review comments being a blocker for this series. After
> > discussing matters with the other tools maintainers, I have concluded:
...
> Why didn't you guys say anything so long time? If you guys tried to give
> us this kind of comments or suggestions as early as possible, I believe
> you should can get that expected answer to your question.
As I say, I'm sorry that I have come to this late. There were other
pressing problems taking my attention, but of course that is my
problem and not your fault.
(If I had been undertaking this review a couple of months ago I would
have been taking a much harder line.)
> Yes, we need to do this better. But this kind of argument really
> shouldn't finish just one week.
I think the remaining changes I am asking for are a few small simple
mechanical changes. If this series does not make 4.6 it will not be
because of this.
I suggest we defer discussion of the other matters until after the
freeze is in place, since (as I have indicated) I do not regard them
as blockers. That will also give us some time to cool off, and also
perhaps for other community members to intervene helpfully.
Thanks,
Ian.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: [v6][PATCH 10/16] tools: introduce some new parameters to set rdm policy
2015-07-08 13:27 ` Ian Jackson
@ 2015-07-08 14:46 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-08 16:23 ` Lars Kurth
0 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: Chen, Tiejun @ 2015-07-08 14:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ian Jackson; +Cc: Stefano Stabellini, Wei Liu, Ian Campbell, xen-devel
On 2015/7/8 21:27, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Chen, Tiejun writes ("Re: [v6][PATCH 10/16] tools: introduce some new parameters to set rdm policy"):
>> On 2015/7/8 19:47, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> I appreciate that I have come to this review late. While I have found
>>> the review conversation quite unsatisfactory, I don't really feel that
>>> I can reject the patch series pending better answers to my questions.
>>>
>>> Instead, I feel that I need to make a set of decisions which will
>>> avoid my review comments being a blocker for this series. After
>>> discussing matters with the other tools maintainers, I have concluded:
> ...
>> Why didn't you guys say anything so long time? If you guys tried to give
>> us this kind of comments or suggestions as early as possible, I believe
>> you should can get that expected answer to your question.
>
> As I say, I'm sorry that I have come to this late. There were other
> pressing problems taking my attention, but of course that is my
> problem and not your fault.
>
> (If I had been undertaking this review a couple of months ago I would
> have been taking a much harder line.)
Certainly I knew this point and trust me, I can image how harder it
should be. And honestly, I really agree you should write such a bottom
line to every series toward higher quality. So at this point I don't
oppose any rigorous requirement.
But what I'm arguing here is that, if you really ask us to reach this
standard, just please pay attention to this at the beginning. And then,
no matter how bad things are, no matter how difficult your requirements
are, it's going to be getting better and at least we shouldn't face
current dilemma, because we would have relatively enough time to
discuss/correct/improve any concerns. In fact, I also don't like this
kind of rush-mode in short time :( Look, now both of us are frustrated.
So I know you guys are very busy but if you can take a little time just
to take a rough look at our design, RFC and revision each time, things
couldn't be worsen like now. Actually you should notice we're trying to
make this process better, like we always post a design before we post
any real patch, and we also take some internal review before we submit
them in public. But I think this needs two sides together to work out,
right?
If you have any good suggestion, just let me know.
>
>> Yes, we need to do this better. But this kind of argument really
>> shouldn't finish just one week.
>
> I think the remaining changes I am asking for are a few small simple
> mechanical changes. If this series does not make 4.6 it will not be
> because of this.
I know this is already difficult to walk into 4.6 since several
hypervisor patches are not acked completely...
But really thanks for your time and review to make me doing better as
possible.
>
> I suggest we defer discussion of the other matters until after the
> freeze is in place, since (as I have indicated) I do not regard them
> as blockers. That will also give us some time to cool off, and also
> perhaps for other community members to intervene helpfully.
>
Yes, I also have this similar intention. I'm going to show a TODO list
to including anything I should do next, but just wait until we finalize
to review this entire series.
Thanks
Tiejun
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: [v6][PATCH 10/16] tools: introduce some new parameters to set rdm policy
2015-07-08 14:46 ` Chen, Tiejun
@ 2015-07-08 16:23 ` Lars Kurth
0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Lars Kurth @ 2015-07-08 16:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chen, Tiejun
Cc: Wei Liu, xen-devel, Ian Jackson, Ian Campbell, Stefano Stabellini
> On 8 Jul 2015, at 15:46, Chen, Tiejun <tiejun.chen@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On 2015/7/8 21:27, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Chen, Tiejun writes ("Re: [v6][PATCH 10/16] tools: introduce some new parameters to set rdm policy"):
>>> On 2015/7/8 19:47, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>> I appreciate that I have come to this review late. While I have found
>>>> the review conversation quite unsatisfactory, I don't really feel that
>>>> I can reject the patch series pending better answers to my questions.
>>>>
>>>> Instead, I feel that I need to make a set of decisions which will
>>>> avoid my review comments being a blocker for this series. After
>>>> discussing matters with the other tools maintainers, I have concluded:
>> ...
>>> Why didn't you guys say anything so long time? If you guys tried to give
>>> us this kind of comments or suggestions as early as possible, I believe
>>> you should can get that expected answer to your question.
>>
>> As I say, I'm sorry that I have come to this late. There were other
>> pressing problems taking my attention, but of course that is my
>> problem and not your fault.
>>
>> (If I had been undertaking this review a couple of months ago I would
>> have been taking a much harder line.)
>
> Certainly I knew this point and trust me, I can image how harder it should be. And honestly, I really agree you should write such a bottom line to every series toward higher quality. So at this point I don't oppose any rigorous requirement.
>
> But what I'm arguing here is that, if you really ask us to reach this standard, just please pay attention to this at the beginning. And then, no matter how bad things are, no matter how difficult your requirements are, it's going to be getting better and at least we shouldn't face current dilemma, because we would have relatively enough time to discuss/correct/improve any concerns. In fact, I also don't like this kind of rush-mode in short time :( Look, now both of us are frustrated.
Guys, from my perspective it looks like we have a way forward on this specific question. Please stay focussed on the task. If anyone needs to vent some frustration, feel free to contact me privately: it does sometimes help a little. But keep in mind that every email exchange related to what has gone wrong with process and workflow, will take away time from getting patch series into 4.6. Either yours or someone else's.
We are all under pressure, and are a little frustrated and are trying to make a good 4.6 release. We should have a post-mortem discussion (maybe using some sort of IRC format, email thread, wiki page, call or whatever works) once the pressure has gone and we had a little bit of time to cool off. But now is not the time: discussing process and workflow issues will just distract everyone.
To be fair to Ian, he has been working flat out on migrating OSSTEST to the new Test Lab which is crucial for the project, compensating for a contractor who couldn't deliver what they promised. The work took a lot longer than expected and has created an awful lot of pain for Ian and others and significantly reduced the time he could spend on reviews.
I am sure we can all learn from this release cycle and I am happy to organise a follow-up, when the bulk of 4.6 work is out of the way.
Regards
Lars
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-07-08 16:23 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2015-07-08 10:13 [v6][PATCH 00/16] Fix RMRR Tiejun Chen
2015-07-08 10:13 ` [v6][PATCH 01/16] xen: introduce XENMEM_reserved_device_memory_map Tiejun Chen
2015-07-08 10:13 ` [v6][PATCH 02/16] xen/vtd: create RMRR mapping Tiejun Chen
2015-07-08 10:13 ` [v6][PATCH 03/16] xen/passthrough: extend hypercall to support rdm reservation policy Tiejun Chen
2015-07-08 10:13 ` [v6][PATCH 04/16] xen: enable XENMEM_memory_map in hvm Tiejun Chen
2015-07-08 10:13 ` [v6][PATCH 05/16] hvmloader: get guest memory map into memory_map[] Tiejun Chen
2015-07-08 10:13 ` [v6][PATCH 06/16] hvmloader/pci: skip reserved ranges Tiejun Chen
2015-07-08 10:13 ` [v6][PATCH 07/16] hvmloader/e820: construct guest e820 table Tiejun Chen
2015-07-08 10:13 ` [v6][PATCH 08/16] tools/libxc: Expose new hypercall xc_reserved_device_memory_map Tiejun Chen
2015-07-08 10:13 ` [v6][PATCH 09/16] tools: extend xc_assign_device() to support rdm reservation policy Tiejun Chen
2015-07-08 10:13 ` [v6][PATCH 10/16] tools: introduce some new parameters to set rdm policy Tiejun Chen
2015-07-08 11:47 ` Ian Jackson
2015-07-08 12:43 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-08 13:20 ` Wei Liu
2015-07-08 13:27 ` Ian Jackson
2015-07-08 14:46 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-08 16:23 ` Lars Kurth
2015-07-08 10:13 ` [v6][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM Tiejun Chen
2015-07-08 10:13 ` [v6][PATCH 12/16] tools: introduce a new parameter to set a predefined rdm boundary Tiejun Chen
2015-07-08 10:14 ` [v6][PATCH 13/16] libxl: construct e820 map with RDM information for HVM guest Tiejun Chen
2015-07-08 10:14 ` [v6][PATCH 14/16] xen/vtd: enable USB device assignment Tiejun Chen
2015-07-08 10:14 ` [v6][PATCH 15/16] xen/vtd: prevent from assign the device with shared rmrr Tiejun Chen
2015-07-08 10:14 ` [v6][PATCH 16/16] tools: parse to enable new rdm policy parameters Tiejun Chen
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).