Re: [Xen-devel] [BUG 1747]Guest could't find bootable device with memory more than 3600M

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 2013-06-12 at 10:02 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 12.06.13 at 10:31, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-06-12 at 08:25 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 11.06.13 at 19:26, Stefano Stabellini 
> >> >>> <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
> > wrote:
> >> > I went through the code that maps the PCI MMIO regions in hvmloader
> >> > (tools/firmware/hvmloader/pci.c:pci_setup) and it looks like it already
> >> > maps the PCI region to high memory if the PCI bar is 64-bit and the MMIO
> >> > region is larger than 512MB.
> >> > 
> >> > Maybe we could just relax this condition and map the device memory to
> >> > high memory no matter the size of the MMIO region if the PCI bar is
> >> > 64-bit?
> >> 
> >> I can only recommend not to: For one, guests not using PAE or
> >> PSE-36 can't map such space at all (and older OSes may not
> >> properly deal with 64-bit BARs at all). And then one would generally
> >> expect this allocation to be done top down (to minimize risk of
> >> running into RAM), and doing so is going to present further risks of
> >> incompatibilities with guest OSes (Linux for example learned only in
> >> 2.6.36 that PFNs in ioremap() can exceed 32 bits, but even in
> >> 3.10-rc5 ioremap_pte_range(), while using "u64 pfn", passes the
> >> PFN to pfn_pte(), the respective parameter of which is
> >> "unsigned long").
> >> 
> >> I think this ought to be done in an iterative process - if all MMIO
> >> regions together don't fit below 4G, the biggest one should be
> >> moved up beyond 4G first, followed by the next to biggest one
> >> etc.
> >> 
> >> And, just like many BIOSes have, there ought to be a guest
> >> (config) controlled option to shrink the RAM portion below 4G
> >> allowing more MMIO blocks to fit.
> >> 
> >> Finally we shouldn't forget the option of not doing any assignment
> >> at all in the BIOS, allowing/forcing the OS to use suitable address
> >> ranges. Of course any OS is permitted to re-assign resources, but
> >> I think they will frequently prefer to avoid re-assignment if already
> >> done by the BIOS.
> > 
> > Is "bios=assign-busses" on the guest command line suitable as a
> > workaround then? Or possibly "bios=realloc"
> 
> Which command line? Getting passed to hvmloader?

I meant the guest kernel command line.

>  In that case,
> doing the assignment is the default, so an inverse option would be
> needed. And not doing any assignment would be wrong too - all
> devices involved in booting need (some of) their resources
> assigned. That's particularly a potential problem since the graphics
> card is the most likely candidate for wanting an extremely large
> area, and I'm not sure whether booting with an assigned graphics
> card would use that card instead of the emulated one.
> 
> As to "realloc" - that can hardly be meant as an option to
> hvmloader, so I'm really unsure what command line you think
> about here.
> 
> Jan
> 



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel