[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 4/6] xen/pvh: bootup and setup related changes.
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 16:47:29 -0700 Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 14:07:06 +0100 > Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 02:34:44PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini > > > wrote: > > > > On Sat, 20 Oct 2012, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > > > > From: Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > for (pfn = PFN_DOWN(start); pfn < xen_max_p2m_pfn; > > > > > pfn++) { unsigned long mfn = pfn_to_mfn(pfn); > > > > > @@ -100,6 +104,7 @@ static unsigned long __init > > > > > xen_do_chunk(unsigned long start, .domid = DOMID_SELF > > > > > }; > > > > > unsigned long len = 0; > > > > > + int xlated_phys = > > > > > xen_feature(XENFEAT_auto_translated_physmap); unsigned long > > > > > pfn; int ret; > > > > > > > > > > @@ -113,7 +118,7 @@ static unsigned long __init > > > > > xen_do_chunk(unsigned long start, continue; > > > > > frame = mfn; > > > > > } else { > > > > > - if (mfn != INVALID_P2M_ENTRY) > > > > > + if (!xlated_phys && mfn != > > > > > INVALID_P2M_ENTRY) continue; > > > > > frame = pfn; > > > > > } > > > > > > > > Shouldn't we add a "!xlated_phys &&" to the other case as well? > > > > > > No. That is handled in xen_pvh_identity_map_chunk which > > > just does a xen_set_clr_mmio_pvh_pte call for the "released" > > > pages. But that is a bit of ... well, extra logic. I think > > > if we did this it would work and look much nicer: > > > > Yes, I think that this version looks better > > But doesn't boot: > > (XEN) vmx_hybrid.c:710:d0 Dom:0 EPT violation 0x181 (r--/---), gpa > 0x000000bf421e1c, mfn 0xffffffffffffffff, type 4. (XEN) > p2m-ept.c:642:d0 Walking EPT tables for domain 0 gfn bf421 (XEN) > p2m-ept.c:648:d0 gfn exceeds max_mapped_pfn 4b062 (XEN) > vmx_hybrid.c:717:d0 --- GLA 0xffffffffff477e1c > > > I'll have to debug it, or we can go back to the prev version, which > I don't think is that un-pretty :). > The reason being: xen_set_identity_and_release_chunk(): NEW : > for (pfn = start_pfn; pfn <= max_pfn_mapped && pfn < end_pfn; pfn++) { xen_pvh_identity_map_chunk(): OLD: for (pfn = start_pfn; pfn < end_pfn; pfn++) IOW, for PVH we need to avoid testing for max_pfn_mapped, as we are mapping the entire IO space. thanks mukesh _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |