From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Keir Fraser <keir.xen@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: consider modules when cutting off
	memory
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 04:26:30 -0800
Message-ID: <CEAF4776.65972%keir.xen@gmail.com>
References: <528A1208020000780010405C@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta4.messagelabs.com ([85.158.143.247])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <keir.xen@gmail.com>) id 1ViNuV-0001AJ-S3
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 12:26:36 +0000
Received: by mail-pa0-f47.google.com with SMTP id kq14so2102975pab.20
	for <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>;
	Mon, 18 Nov 2013 04:26:32 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <528A1208020000780010405C@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 18/11/2013 04:11, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:

>>>> On 18.11.13 at 12:32, Keir Fraser <keir.xen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 18/11/2013 00:37, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> The code in question runs after module ranges got already removed from
>>> the E820 table, so when determining the new maximum page/PDX we need to
>>> explicitly take them into account.
>>> 
>>> Furthermore we need to round up the ending addresses here, in order to
>>> fully cover eventual partial trailing pages.
>> 
>> Is rounding up the right thing to do? We round down in find_max_pfn()?
> 
> Yes, it is - we're trying to determine a new max_page/max_pdx
> here, so we should include the trailing part of a partial page. This
> is particularly necessary for the modules, as otherwise the last
> few bytes of a module may end up being in memory not satisfying
> mfn_valid().
> 
> If anything, we'd need to round down after the E820 loop, and
> round up after the modules one. But I don't think the two max_p*
> being one too big here would matter much, so uniformly rounding
> up seems sufficient.

Okay makes sense.

Acked-by: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>

> Jan
> 
>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
>>> 
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/setup.c
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/setup.c
>>> @@ -1013,9 +1013,17 @@ void __init __start_xen(unsigned long mb
>>>                      ASSERT(j);
>>>                  }
>>>                  map_e = boot_e820.map[j].addr + boot_e820.map[j].size;
>>> -                if ( (map_e >> PAGE_SHIFT) < max_page )
>>> +                for ( j = 0; j < mbi->mods_count; ++j )
>>>                  {
>>> -                    max_page = map_e >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>>> +                    uint64_t end = pfn_to_paddr(mod[j].mod_start) +
>>> +                                   mod[j].mod_end;
>>> +
>>> +                    if ( map_e < end )
>>> +                        map_e = end;
>>> +                }
>>> +                if ( PFN_UP(map_e) < max_page )
>>> +                {
>>> +                    max_page = PFN_UP(map_e);
>>>                      max_pdx = pfn_to_pdx(max_page - 1) + 1;
>>>                  }
>>>                  printk(XENLOG_WARNING "Ignoring inaccessible memory range"
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> 
>