[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] HVM support for e820_host (Was: Bug: Limitation of <=2GB RAM in domU persists with 4.3.0)
On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 17:08:33 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: You are missing the hypervisor patch to set the E820 for HVM guests. http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2013-05/msg01603.htmlAnd that should make it possible to "stash" the E820 in the hypervisor. Regarding Jan's comment on the thread here: http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2013-05/msg01649.html Should this not instead of: === @@ -595,7 +595,7 @@ void arch_domain_destroy(struct domain *d) if ( is_hvm_domain(d) ) hvm_domain_destroy(d); else - xfree(d->arch.pv_domain.e820); + xfree(d->arch.e820); free_domain_pirqs(d); if ( !is_idle_domain(d) ) === be something like: === @@ -595,7 +595,6 @@ void arch_domain_destroy(struct domain *d) if ( is_hvm_domain(d) ) hvm_domain_destroy(d); - else - xfree(d->arch.pv_domain.e820); + xfree(d->arch.e820); free_domain_pirqs(d); if ( !is_idle_domain(d) ) === The question I have is will d->arch.e820 always be there and set even with e820_host=0? Or does there need to be an extra check here? Then after that you will need to implement in the hvmloader.c the XENMEM_memory_map hypercall to get the E820 and do something with it.Oh, and something like this probably should do it - not compile testedin any way: diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c index 1fcaed0..7b38890 100644 --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c @@ -3146,6 +3146,7 @@ static long hvm_memory_op(int cmd, XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) arg) case XENMEM_machine_memory_map: case XENMEM_machphys_mapping: return -ENOSYS; + case XENMEM_memory_map: case XENMEM_decrease_reservation: rc = do_memory_op(cmd, arg);current->domain->arch.hvm_domain.qemu_mapcache_invalidate = 1;@@ -3216,10 +3217,10 @@ static long hvm_memory_op_compat32(int cmd, XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) arg) switch ( cmd & MEMOP_CMD_MASK ) { - case XENMEM_memory_map: case XENMEM_machine_memory_map: case XENMEM_machphys_mapping: return -ENOSYS; + case XENMEM_memory_map: case XENMEM_decrease_reservation: rc = compat_memory_op(cmd, arg);current->domain->arch.hvm_domain.qemu_mapcache_invalidate = 1;diff --git a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/e820.c b/tools/firmware/hvmloader/e820.c index 2e05e93..86fb20a 100644 --- a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/e820.c +++ b/tools/firmware/hvmloader/e820.c @@ -68,16 +68,42 @@ void dump_e820_table(struct e820entry *e820, unsigned int nr) } } +static const char *e820_names(int type) +{ + switch (type) { + case E820_RAM: return "RAM"; + case E820_RESERVED: return "Reserved"; + case E820_ACPI: return "ACPI"; + case E820_NVS: return "ACPI NVS"; + case E820_UNUSABLE: return "Unusable"; + default: break; + } + return "Unknown"; +} + +/* Create an E820 table based on memory parameters provided in hvm_info. */int build_e820_table(struct e820entry *e820, unsigned int lowmem_reserved_base, unsigned int bios_image_base) { unsigned int nr = 0; + struct xen_memory_map op; + struct e820entry map[E820MAX]; + int rc; if ( !lowmem_reserved_base ) lowmem_reserved_base = 0xA0000; + set_xen_guest_handle(op.buffer, map); + + rc = hypercall_memory_op ( XENMEM_memory_op, &op); + if ( rc != -ENOSYS) { /* It works!? */ + int i; + for ( i = 0; i < op.nr_entries; i++ ) + printf(" %lx -> %lx %s\n", map[i].addr >> 12, + (map[i].addr + map[i].size) >> 12, e820_names(map[i].type)); + } /* Lowmem must be at least 512K to keep Windows happy) */ ASSERT ( lowmem_reserved_base > 512<<10 ); Thanks. :) Will try that when I've verified the first two patches (mine and Mukesh's) build cleanly in my 4.3.0 package build. Gordan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |