|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH V2 2/3] xen/arm: Add handling of extended regions for Dom0
On Wed, 22 Sep 2021, Oleksandr wrote:
> On 22.09.21 01:00, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 Sep 2021, Oleksandr wrote:
> > > On 21.09.21 02:21, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 19 Sep 2021, Oleksandr wrote:
> > > > > > On 18/09/2021 03:37, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > > > > On Fri, 17 Sep 2021, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Fri, 17 Sep 2021, Oleksandr wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > + dt_dprintk("Find unallocated memory for extended
> > > > > > > > > > > regions\n");
> > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > + unalloc_mem = rangeset_new(NULL, NULL, 0);
> > > > > > > > > > > + if ( !unalloc_mem )
> > > > > > > > > > > + return -ENOMEM;
> > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > + /* Start with all available RAM */
> > > > > > > > > > > + for ( i = 0; i < bootinfo.mem.nr_banks; i++ )
> > > > > > > > > > > + {
> > > > > > > > > > > + start = bootinfo.mem.bank[i].start;
> > > > > > > > > > > + end = bootinfo.mem.bank[i].start +
> > > > > > > > > > > bootinfo.mem.bank[i].size - 1;
> > > > > > > > > > > + res = rangeset_add_range(unalloc_mem, start,
> > > > > > > > > > > end);
> > > > > > > > > > > + if ( res )
> > > > > > > > > > > + {
> > > > > > > > > > > + printk(XENLOG_ERR "Failed to add:
> > > > > > > > > > > %#"PRIx64"->%#"PRIx64"\n",
> > > > > > > > > > > + start, end);
> > > > > > > > > > > + goto out;
> > > > > > > > > > > + }
> > > > > > > > > > > + }
> > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > + /* Remove RAM assigned to Dom0 */
> > > > > > > > > > > + for ( i = 0; i < assign_mem->nr_banks; i++ )
> > > > > > > > > > > + {
> > > > > > > > > > > + start = assign_mem->bank[i].start;
> > > > > > > > > > > + end = assign_mem->bank[i].start +
> > > > > > > > > > > assign_mem->bank[i].size - 1;
> > > > > > > > > > > + res = rangeset_remove_range(unalloc_mem, start,
> > > > > > > > > > > end);
> > > > > > > > > > > + if ( res )
> > > > > > > > > > > + {
> > > > > > > > > > > + printk(XENLOG_ERR "Failed to remove:
> > > > > > > > > > > %#"PRIx64"->%#"PRIx64"\n",
> > > > > > > > > > > + start, end);
> > > > > > > > > > > + goto out;
> > > > > > > > > > > + }
> > > > > > > > > > > + }
> > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > + /* Remove reserved-memory regions */
> > > > > > > > > > > + for ( i = 0; i < bootinfo.reserved_mem.nr_banks; i++
> > > > > > > > > > > )
> > > > > > > > > > > + {
> > > > > > > > > > > + start = bootinfo.reserved_mem.bank[i].start;
> > > > > > > > > > > + end = bootinfo.reserved_mem.bank[i].start +
> > > > > > > > > > > + bootinfo.reserved_mem.bank[i].size - 1;
> > > > > > > > > > > + res = rangeset_remove_range(unalloc_mem, start,
> > > > > > > > > > > end);
> > > > > > > > > > > + if ( res )
> > > > > > > > > > > + {
> > > > > > > > > > > + printk(XENLOG_ERR "Failed to remove:
> > > > > > > > > > > %#"PRIx64"->%#"PRIx64"\n",
> > > > > > > > > > > + start, end);
> > > > > > > > > > > + goto out;
> > > > > > > > > > > + }
> > > > > > > > > > > + }
> > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > + /* Remove grant table region */
> > > > > > > > > > > + start = kinfo->gnttab_start;
> > > > > > > > > > > + end = kinfo->gnttab_start + kinfo->gnttab_size - 1;
> > > > > > > > > > > + res = rangeset_remove_range(unalloc_mem, start, end);
> > > > > > > > > > > + if ( res )
> > > > > > > > > > > + {
> > > > > > > > > > > + printk(XENLOG_ERR "Failed to remove:
> > > > > > > > > > > %#"PRIx64"->%#"PRIx64"\n",
> > > > > > > > > > > + start, end);
> > > > > > > > > > > + goto out;
> > > > > > > > > > > + }
> > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > + start = EXT_REGION_START;
> > > > > > > > > > > + end = min((1ULL << p2m_ipa_bits) - 1,
> > > > > > > > > > > EXT_REGION_END);
> > > > > > > > > > > + res = rangeset_report_ranges(unalloc_mem, start, end,
> > > > > > > > > > > + add_ext_regions,
> > > > > > > > > > > ext_regions);
> > > > > > > > > > > + if ( res )
> > > > > > > > > > > + ext_regions->nr_banks = 0;
> > > > > > > > > > > + else if ( !ext_regions->nr_banks )
> > > > > > > > > > > + res = -ENOENT;
> > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > +out:
> > > > > > > > > > > + rangeset_destroy(unalloc_mem);
> > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > + return res;
> > > > > > > > > > > +}
> > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > +static int __init find_memory_holes(const struct
> > > > > > > > > > > kernel_info
> > > > > > > > > > > *kinfo,
> > > > > > > > > > > + struct meminfo
> > > > > > > > > > > *ext_regions)
> > > > > > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > > > > > + struct dt_device_node *np;
> > > > > > > > > > > + struct rangeset *mem_holes;
> > > > > > > > > > > + paddr_t start, end;
> > > > > > > > > > > + unsigned int i;
> > > > > > > > > > > + int res;
> > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > + dt_dprintk("Find memory holes for extended
> > > > > > > > > > > regions\n");
> > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > + mem_holes = rangeset_new(NULL, NULL, 0);
> > > > > > > > > > > + if ( !mem_holes )
> > > > > > > > > > > + return -ENOMEM;
> > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > + /* Start with maximum possible addressable physical
> > > > > > > > > > > memory
> > > > > > > > > > > range */
> > > > > > > > > > > + start = EXT_REGION_START;
> > > > > > > > > > > + end = min((1ULL << p2m_ipa_bits) - 1,
> > > > > > > > > > > EXT_REGION_END);
> > > > > > > > > > > + res = rangeset_add_range(mem_holes, start, end);
> > > > > > > > > > > + if ( res )
> > > > > > > > > > > + {
> > > > > > > > > > > + printk(XENLOG_ERR "Failed to add:
> > > > > > > > > > > %#"PRIx64"->%#"PRIx64"\n",
> > > > > > > > > > > + start, end);
> > > > > > > > > > > + goto out;
> > > > > > > > > > > + }
> > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > + /* Remove all regions described by "reg" property
> > > > > > > > > > > (MMIO,
> > > > > > > > > > > RAM,
> > > > > > > > > > > etc) */
> > > > > > > > > > Well... The loop below is not going to handle all the
> > > > > > > > > > regions
> > > > > > > > > > described in
> > > > > > > > > > the property "reg". Instead, it will cover a subset of "reg"
> > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > memory is addressable.
> > > > > > > > > As I understand, we are only interested in subset of "reg"
> > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > memory is
> > > > > > > > > addressable.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You will also need to cover "ranges" that will describe the
> > > > > > > > > > BARs
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > the PCI
> > > > > > > > > > devices.
> > > > > > > > > Good point.
> > > > > > > > Yes, very good point!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Could you please clarify how to recognize whether it is a PCI
> > > > > > > > > device as long as PCI support is not merged? Or just to find
> > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > device nodes
> > > > > > > > > with non-empty "ranges" property
> > > > > > > > > and retrieve addresses?
> > > > > > > > Normally any bus can have a ranges property with the aperture
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > possible address translations, including /amba (compatible =
> > > > > > > > "simple-bus"). However, in these cases dt_device_get_address
> > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > takes care of it, see
> > > > > > > > xen/common/device_tree.c:dt_device_get_address.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The PCI bus is special for 2 reasons:
> > > > > > > > - the ranges property has a different format
> > > > > > > > - the bus is hot-pluggable
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So I think the only one that we need to treat specially is PCI.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As far as I am aware PCI is the only bus (or maybe just the only
> > > > > > > > bus
> > > > > > > > that we support?) where ranges means the aperture.
> > > > > > > Now that I think about this, there is another "hotpluggable"
> > > > > > > scenario
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > need to think about:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1] https://marc.info/?l=xen-devel&m=163056546214978
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Xilinx devices have FPGA regions with apertures currently not
> > > > > > > described
> > > > > > > in device tree, where things can programmed in PL at runtime
> > > > > > > making
> > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > devices appear with new MMIO regions out of thin air.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now let me start by saying that yes, the entire programmable
> > > > > > > region
> > > > > > > aperture could probably be described in device tree, however, in
> > > > > > > reality it is not currently done in any of the device trees we use
> > > > > > > (including the upstream device trees in linux.git).
> > > > > > This is rather annoying, but not unheard. There are a couple of
> > > > > > platforms
> > > > > > where the MMIOs are not fully described in the DT.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In fact, we have a callback 'specific_mappings' which create
> > > > > > additional
> > > > > > mappings (e.g. on the omap5) for dom0.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, we have a problem :-(
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I can work toward getting the right info on device tree, but in
> > > > > > > reality
> > > > > > > that is going to take time and for now the device tree doesn't
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > FPGA aperture in it. So if we accept this series as is, it is
> > > > > > > going to
> > > > > > > stop features like [1] from working. >
> > > > > > > If we cannot come up with any better plans, I think it would be
> > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > to drop find_memory_holes, only rely on find_unallocated_memory
> > > > > > > even
> > > > > > > when the IOMMU is on. One idea is that we could add on top of the
> > > > > > > regions found by find_unallocated_memory any MMIO regions marked
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > xen,passthrough: they are safe because they are not going to dom0
> > > > > > > anyway.
> > > > > > (Oleksandr, it looks like some rationale about the different
> > > > > > approach is
> > > > > > missing in the commit message. Can you add it?)
> > > > > Yes sure, but let me please clarify what is different approach in this
> > > > > context. Is it to *also* take into the account MMIO regions of the
> > > > > devices
> > > > > for
> > > > > passthrough for case when IOMMU is off (in addition to unallocated
> > > > > memory)? If
> > > > > yes, I wonder whether we will gain much with that according to that
> > > > > device's
> > > > > MMIO regions are usually not big enough and we stick to allocate
> > > > > extended
> > > > > regions with bigger size (> 64MB).
> > > > That's fair enough. There are a couple of counter examples where the
> > > > MMIO regions for the device to assign are quite large, for instance a
> > > > GPU, Xilinx AIEngine, or the PCIe Root Complex with the entire aperture,
> > > > but maybe they are not that common. I am not sure if it is worth
> > > > scanning the tree for xen,passthrough regions every time at boot for
> > > > this.
> > > ok, I will add a few sentences to commit message about this different
> > > approach
> > > for now. At least this could be implemented later on if there is a need.
> > One thing that worries me about this is that if we take an old Xen with
> > this series and run it on a new board, it might cause problems. At the
> > very least [1] wouldn't work.
>
> I got it.
>
>
> >
> > Can we have a Xen command line argument to disable extended regions as
> > an emergecy toggle?
>
> I think, yes. If no preference for the argument name I will name it
> "no-ext-region".
It is better to introduce it as ext-regions=yes/no with yes as default.
So that in the future we could extending it to ext-regions=start,size if
we wanted to.
|
 |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |