Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/3] xen/tools: Add 64 bits big bar support

["Zhang, Xiantao" <xiantao.zhang@xxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 6:45 PM
> To: Hao, Xudong
> Cc: ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Zhang, Xiantao; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/3] xen/tools: Add 64 bits big bar support
> 
> >>> On 20.08.12 at 05:22, "Hao, Xudong" <xudong.hao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
> >> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 5:36 PM
> >> To: Hao, Xudong
> >> Cc: ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Zhang, Xiantao;
> >> xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/3] xen/tools: Add 64 bits big bar
> >> support
> >>
> >> >>> On 17.08.12 at 11:24, "Hao, Xudong" <xudong.hao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >>  -----Original Message-----
> >> >> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
> >> >> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 7:04 PM
> >> >> To: Hao, Xudong
> >> >> Cc: ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Zhang, Xiantao;
> >> >> xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >> Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/3] xen/tools: Add 64 bits big
> >> >> bar support
> >> >>
> >> >> >>> On 16.08.12 at 12:48, "Hao, Xudong" <xudong.hao@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >> >> >> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
> >> >> >> >>> On 15.08.12 at 08:54, Xudong Hao <xudong.hao@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >> >> >> > --- a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/config.h    Tue Jul 24 17:02:04
> 2012
> >> >> +0200
> >> >> >> > +++ b/tools/firmware/hvmloader/config.h    Thu Jul 26 15:40:01
> 2012
> >> >> +0800
> >> >> >> > @@ -53,6 +53,10 @@ extern struct bios_config ovmf_config;
> >> >> >> >  /* MMIO hole: Hardcoded defaults, which can be dynamically
> >> expanded.
> >> >> */
> >> >> >> >  #define PCI_MEM_START       0xf0000000
> >> >> >> >  #define PCI_MEM_END         0xfc000000
> >> >> >> > +#define PCI_HIGH_MEM_START  0xa000000000ULL
> >> >> >> > +#define PCI_HIGH_MEM_END    0xf000000000ULL
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> With such hard coded values, this is hardly meant to be
> >> >> >> anything more than an RFC, is it? These values should not exist
> >> >> >> in the first place, and the variables below should be
> >> >> >> determined from VM characteristics (best would presumably be to
> >> >> >> allocate them top down from the end of physical address space,
> >> >> >> making sure you don't run into RAM).
> >> >>
> >> >> No comment on this part?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > The MMIO high memory start from 640G, it's already very high, I
> >> > think we don't need allocate MMIO top down from the high of physical
> address space.
> >> > Another thing you remind me that maybe we can skip this high MMIO
> >> > hole
> >> when
> >> > setup p2m table in build hvm of libxc(setup_guest()), like the
> >> > handles for MMIO below 4G.
> >>
> >> That would be an option, but any fixed address you pick here will
> >> look arbitrary (and will sooner or later raise questions). Plus by
> >> allowing the RAM above 4G to remain contiguous even for huge guests,
> >> we'd retain maximum compatibility with all sorts of guest OSes.
> >> Furthermore, did you check that we in all cases can use 40-bit
> >> (guest) physical addresses (I would think that 36 is the biggest
> >> common value). Bottom line - please don't use a fixed number here.
> >>
> >
> > Where does present the 36-bit physical addresses limit, could you help
> > to point out in the current Xen code?
> 
> Look at xen/arch/x86/hvm/mtrr.c, e.g. hvm_mtrr_pat_init() or
> mtrr_var_range_msr_set().

I think BIOS may fix it, you can refer to tools/firmware/hvmloader/cacheattr.c, 
and BIOS can set to right phys bit number after check. 
Xiantao

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