On 22/01/2020 01:58, Bobby Eshleman wrote:Hey everybody,
This is an RFC patchset for the very beginnings of adding RISC-V support to Xen. This RFC is really just to start a dialogue about supporting RISC-V and align with the Xen project and community before going further. For that reason, it is very rough and very incomplete.
My name is Bobby Eshleman, I'm a software engineer at Star Lab / Wind River on the ARM team, mostly having worked in the Linux kernel. I've also been involved a good amount with Xen on ARM here, mostly dealing with tooling, deployment, and testing. A lot of this patchset is heavily inspired by the Xen/ARM source code (particularly the early setup up code).
Currently, this patchset really only sets up virtual memory for Xen and initializes UART to enable print output. None of RISC-V's virtualization support has been implemented yet, although that is the next road to start going down. Many functions only contain dummy implementations. Many shortcuts have been taken and TODO's have been left accordingly. It is very, very rough. Be forewarned: you are quite likely to see some ungainly code here (despite my efforts to clean it up before sending this patchset out). My intent with this RFC is to align early and gauge interest, as opposed to presenting a totally complete patchset.
Because the ARM and RISC-V use cases will likely bear resemblance, the RISC-V port should probably respect the design considerations that have been laid out and respected by Xen on ARM for dom0less, safety certification, etc... My inclination has been to initially target or prioritize dom0less (without excluding dom0full) and use the ARM dom0less implementation as a model to follow. I'd love feedback on this point and on how the Xen project might envision a RISC-V implementation.
This patchset has _some_ code for future support for 32-bit, but currently my focus is on 64-bit.
Again, this is a very, very rough and totally incomplete patchset. My goal here is just to gauge community interest, begin discussing what Xen on RISC-V may look like, receive feedback, and see if I'm heading in the right direction.
My big questions are: Does the Xen project have interest in RISC-V?
There is very large downstream interest in RISC-V. So a definite yes. What can be done to make the RISC-V port as upstreamable as possible? Any major pitfalls?
It would be great to hear all of your feedback.
Both RISC-V and Power9 are frequently requested things, and both sufferfrom the fact that, while we as a community would like them, theupstream intersection of "people who know Xen" and "people who knowenough arch $X to do an initial port" is 0.This series clearly demonstrates a change in the status quo, and I thinka lot of people will be happy.To get RISC-V to being fully supported, we will ultimately need to gethardware into the CI system, and an easy way for developers to testchanges. Do you have any thoughts on production RISC-V hardware(ideally server form factor) for the CI system, and/or dev boards whichmight be available fairly cheaply?How much time do you have to put towards the port? Is this something inyour free time, or something you are doing as part of work? Ultimately,we are going to need to increase the level of RISC-V knowledge in thecommunity to maintain things in the future.Other than that, very RFC series are entirely fine. A good first stepwould be simply to get the build working, and get some kind ofcross-compile build in CI, to make sure that we don't clobber the RISC-Vbuild with common or other-arch changes.I hope this helps.
I totally agree with what Andy says.
CfP closes March 6th. Design sessions can be submitted afterwards
Community calls may also be a good option to deal with specific issues / questions, e.g. around compile support in the CI, etc.
Lars
|