Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 3/3] xen: eliminate scalability issues from initial mapping setup

[Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>]

On 09/05/2014 11:05 AM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 05/09/14 08:55, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > On 09/04/2014 04:43 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > > On 04/09/14 15:31, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > > On 04.09.14 at 15:02, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > On 04/09/14 13:59, David Vrabel wrote:
> > > > > > On 04/09/14 13:38, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > > > > > > Direct Xen to place the initial P->M table outside of the initial
> > > > > > > mapping, as otherwise the 1G (implementation) / 2G (theoretical)
> > > > > > > restriction on the size of the initial mapping limits the amount
> > > > > > > of memory a domain can be handed initially.
> > > > > > The three level p2m limits memory to 512 GiB on x86-64 but this patch
> > > > > > doesn't seem to address this limit and thus seems a bit useless to
> > > > > > me.
> > > > > Any increase of the p2m beyond 3 levels will need to come with
> > > > > substantial libxc changes first.  3 level p2ms are hard coded
> > > > > throughout
> > > > > all the PV build and migrate code.
> > > > No, there no such dependency - the kernel could use 4 levels at
> > > > any time (sacrificing being able to get migrated), making sure it
> > > > only exposes the 3 levels hanging off the fourth level (or not
> > > > exposing this information at all) to external entities making this
> > > > wrong assumption.
> > > >
> > > > Jan
> > > That would require that the PV kernel must start with a 3 level p2m and
> > > fudge things afterwards.
> > I always thought the 3 level p2m is constructed by the kernel, not by
> > the tools.
> >
> > It starts with the linear p2m list anchored at xen_start_info->mfn_list,
> > constructs the p2m tree and writes the p2m_top_mfn mfn to
> > HYPERVISOR_shared_info->arch.pfn_to_mfn_frame_list_list
> >
> > See comment in the kernel source arch/x86/xen/p2m.c
> >
> > So booting with a larger p2m list can be handled completely by the
> > kernel itself.
> Ah yes - I remember now.  All the toolstack does is create the linear
> p2m.  In which case building such a domain will be fine.
>
> > > At a minimum, I would expect a patch to libxc to detect a 4 level PV
> > > guest and fail with a meaningful error, rather than an obscure "m2p
> > > doesn't match p2m for mfn/pfn X".
> > I'd rather fix it in a clean way.
> >
> > I think the best way to do it would be an indicator in the p2m array
> > anchor, e.g. setting 1<<61 in pfn_to_mfn_frame_list_list. This will
> > result in an early error with old tools:
> > "Couldn't map p2m_frame_list_list"
> No it wont.  The is_mapped() macro in the toolstack is quite broken.  It
> stems from a lack of Design/API/ABI concerning things like the p2m.  In
> particular, INVALID_MFN is not an ABI constant, nor is any notion of
> mapped vs unmapped.
That's not relevant here. map_frame_list_list() in xc_domain_save.c
reads pfn_to_mfn_frame_list_list and tries to map that mfn directly.
This will fail and result in above error message.

> Its current implementation is a relic of 32bit days, and only checks bit
> 31.  It also means that it is impossible to migrate a PV VM with pfns
> above the 43bit limit; a restriction which is lifted by my migration v2
> series.  A lot of the other migration constructs are in a similar state,
> which is why they are being deleted by the v2 series.
>
> The clean way to fix this is to leave pfn_to_mfn_frame_list_list as
> INVALID_MFN. Introduce two new fields beside it named p2m_levels and
> p2m_root, which then caters for levels greater than 4 in a compatible
> manner.
I don't mind doing it this way.


Juergen


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