-----Original Message-----
From: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
PUCCETTI Armand
Sent: 01 September 2006 17:11
To: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Xen-devel] idle_pg_tables??
In the paging mechanism of XEN what is the role of the variable
'idle_pg_table*' variables ??
For a 4-levels paging system these variables are defined in
x86_64.S and
partially initialised.
Here is the code, copied from x86_64.S:
__________________________________________________
...
/* Initial PML4 -- level-4 page table. */
.org 0x2000
ENTRY(idle_pg_table)
ENTRY(idle_pg_table_4)
.quad idle_pg_table_l3 - __PAGE_OFFSET + 7 # PML4[0]
.fill 261,8,0
.quad idle_pg_table_l3 - __PAGE_OFFSET + 7 # PML4[262]
/* Initial PDP -- level-3 page table. */
.org 0x3000
ENTRY(idle_pg_table_l3)
.quad idle_pg_table_l2 - __PAGE_OFFSET + 7
/* Initial PDE -- level-2 page table. Maps first 64MB
physical memory. */
.org 0x4000
ENTRY(idle_pg_table_l2)
.macro identmap from=0, count=32
.if \count-1
identmap "(\from+0)","(\count/2)"
identmap "(\from+(0x200000*(\count/2)))","(\count/2)"
.else
.quad 0x00000000000001e3 + \from
.endif
.endm
identmap
.org 0x4000 + PAGE_SIZE
.code64
.section ".bss.stack_aligned","w"
ENTRY(cpu0_stack)
.fill STACK_SIZE,1,0
______________________________________________________
trying to understand that:
- idle_pg_table_l4 is the same as idle_pg_table and contains
263 enties,
all zeroed but two (identical) ones. These
two pointers point somewhere close to idle_pg_table_l3. Why are there
two identical pointers and why shift them by __PAGE_OFFSET +7?
So that we can have a map for both LOW memory (address zero and 1GB
forward) and a map for the upper range of memory where Xen's
base-virtual address is (__PAGE_OFFSET). I think you'll find that if you
shift __PAGE_OFFSET sufficient number of bits (30 or so), the remaining
number is 262... [I haven't checked this]. Reusing the same-pagetable
entry allows the use of a single entry in the next page-table level.
It's shifted by PAGE_OFFSET because the code is linked such that
everything is based on the virtual address that we eventually will use
in the system. But the page-table wants to have a PHYSICAL address, so
we subtract the virtual baseaddress from the location that we want the
PT entry to point to.
The magic number of 7 represents the flags for the page-entry, which is
bit 0=Present, bit 1= R/W (Writable) and bit 2 U/S => User accessible.
Since this is the top lavel page, it makes sense to set it all to
present and allow full access, since next level down can always override
a permission (but can't allow something forbidden by upper level).
- idle_pg_table_l3 is located between 0x3000 and 0x4000 ,
with only the
first slot initialised. The later points to
level 2 table with some offset.
This allows the next 128MB of memory to be mapped. Which is sufficient
for the initialization of the system.
- idle_pg_table_l2 has terrible code with a recursive macro,
who expands
into 63 quad constants. It is unclear
to me why this complicated macro?? I would have put a table
of constants
pretty simply... Every entry in that l2 table points to a
fixed address, at intervals of 4K (a page).l2 tables are
located between
0x01E3 to 0x03E001E3 in groups. Every group
is apparently a set of 4 page tables and each table has a
size of 128K.
Groups are separated by approx 256MB.
Why are these spacings and groups?
I can't explain why there is a macro and why it does things in the way
it does, except I think you'll find that it's related to the code being
located at a virtual address which is non-zero at this level [I haven't
checked this out].
The value 0x1E3 is used to indicate that the pages are 2MB, Dirty
(prevents the MMU from rewriting them dirty if they are later written),
Accessed (same reason as D), Writeable and Present.
- idle_pg_table_l1 is not an entry and so l1 tables are not
allocated. Why?
Because the value 1E3 (or part thereof) is indicating that the page is
2MB pages, so we don't need a L1 table entry for the pages defined in
the above way.
Home