[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] Design doc of adding ACPI support for arm64 on Xen - version 4

El 20/08/15 a les 14.29, Shannon Zhao ha escrit:
> On 2015/8/20 19:28, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>> El 20/08/15 a les 13.22, Shannon Zhao ha escrit:
>>> Hi Roger,
>>> On 2015/8/20 16:20, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>>> El 20/08/15 a les 5.07, Shannon Zhao ha escrit:
>>>>> On 2015/8/19 23:02, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>>>>> El 19/08/15 a les 14.13, Shannon Zhao ha escrit:
>>>>>>> XENMAPSPACE "XENMAPSPACE_dev_mmio". The usage of this hypercall
>>>>>>> parameters:
>>>>>>> - domid: DOMID_SELF.
>>>>>>> - space: XENMAPSPACE_dev_mmio.
>>>>>>> - gpfns: guest physical addresses where the mapping should appear.
>>>>>> This is not complete, you have forgotten to add the idxs field,
>>>>> Sorry, I didn't use the idx for the mmio region mapping. What's the
>>>>> idx
>>>>> useful for here?
>>>> I've already posted this in the previous version, and you agreed on the
>>>> interface and the usage of the fields, please see:
>>>> http://marc.info/?l=xen-devel&m=143986236212359
>>>> The idxs field is explicitly mentioned there with it's usage.
>>> Yeah, I said I will add the description of hypercall parameters.
>>> It seems that we are talking about a different parameter.
>>> To map the mmio region, I reuse the struct xen_add_to_physmap and there
>> You should also take into account xen_add_to_physmap_batch (or are you
>> planning to issue an hypercall for every single MMIO page that you want
>> to map?), but anyway the idx(s) field is there in both structs.
> Yeah, current approach is to issue an hypercall for every single MMIO
> page. But if we want to batch map MMIO pages, I think it needs the size
> parameter and what's idxs useful for? As we map the MMIO pages 1:1, it
> seems it's unnecessary to check "idxs[i] == gpfns[i]", right?

This is what I've been trying to say, why do we need to enforce 1:1
mappings in such way? Is there some kind of technical limitation in ARM
second stage translation that prevents doing non 1:1 mappings for MMIO

If for the initial design you need to enforce 1:1 for some reason (which
I'm interested in knowing), why don't you just check idxs[i] ==
gpfns[i], this way we can always add support for non 1:1 mappings later
if needed.

And yes, the "size" parameter in xen_add_to_physmap_batch indicates the
number of 4KB pages present in both the idxs and the gpfns arrays.

>>> is idx not idxs. Everytime Dom0 maps one page and it's mapped 1:1(guest
>>> physical address is same with real physical hardware address), so it
>>> only needs to tell the hypervisor the gpfn.
>> IMHO, I'm not sure why we should restrict this to 1:1 (although I admit
>> this is going to be the common case). Didn't we are that we are going to
>> allow non 1:1 mapping of MMIO regions?
>> If you want you can check in the hypercall handler that idxs[i] ==
>> gpfns[i], and return -EOPNOTSUPP if they don't match, but I still don't
>> see why this should be restricted to 1:1 mappings.
> For Dom0 which get the device MMIO information from the DT or ACPI DSDT
> table. To ACPI, we don't (or can't)modify anything in DSDT table. So
> actually the MMIO regions Dom0 gets are the real physical hardware MMIO
> regions and the start address and size of them are same.

I understand that 1:1 mappings are always going to be used with the
current approach in Linux, but I see no reason to enforce this inside of
Xen. It's not going to add more complexity to the hypercall handler, and
is something that we might want to use in the future.


Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.