[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1 08/10] iommu: Split iommu_hwdom_init() into arch specific parts

>>> On 15.05.17 at 13:45, <julien.grall@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 05/15/2017 09:19 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 15.05.17 at 09:42, <julien.grall@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 15/05/2017 08:20, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> With this I think there's quite a bit of justification needed to keep
>>>> going without M2P on ARM.
>>> As said in a previous thread, I made a quick calculation, ARM32 supports
>>> up 40-bit PA and IPA (e.g guest address), which means 28-bits of
>>> MFN/GFN. The GFN would have to be stored in a 32-bit for alignment, so
>>> we would need 2^28 * 4 = 1GiB of virtual address space and potentially
>>> physical memory. We don't have 1GB of VA space free on 32-bit right now.
>> How come? You don't share address spaces with guests.
> Below the layout for ARM32:
>   *   0  -  12M   <COMMON>
>   *
>   *  32M - 128M   Frametable: 24 bytes per page for 16GB of RAM
>   * 256M -   1G   VMAP: ioremap and early_ioremap use this virtual address
>   *                    space
>   *
>   *   1G -   2G   Xenheap: always-mapped memory
>   *   2G -   4G   Domheap: on-demand-mapped

Since Domheap hardly covers all memory, the obvious thing would
seem to be to take part of that region, just like on x86 we also
had to reduce the direct mapping area in order to support systems
with more than 5Tb.

>>> ARM64 currently supports up to 48-bit PA and 48-bit IPA, which means
>>> 36-bits of MFN/GFN. The GFN would have to be stored in 64-bit for
>>> alignment, so we would need 2^36 * 8 = 512GiB of virtual address space
>>> and potentially physical memory. While virtual address space is not a
>>> problem, the memory is a problem for embedded platform. We want Xen to
>>> be as lean as possible.
>> You don't need to allocate all 512Gb, the table can be as sparse as
>> present memory permits.
> I am aware about that... The main point is reducing the footprint of 
> Xen. Assuming you have a 8GB board, you would have to use 16MB for the M2P.
> Likely this will increase the footprint of Xen ARM. For what benefits? 
> Avoiding to store few byte in a non-generic way when we need it...

But that's the point: Generic code becomes more and more clumsy
if non-generic mechanisms need to be introduced. Quite a few we've
had the discussion of saving a few Mb here or there, and I've almost
always been the one to ask for not wasting memory even if we have
plenty, so I'm all with you on that aspect. Nevertheless there is a
point where the trade-off between memory overhead and generic
(i.e. easier to maintain) code crosses a boundary, and I'm simply
wondering whether we aren't at that point.


Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.