Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] xen: Add files needed for minimal riscv build

[Bob Eshleman <bobbyeshleman@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 5/14/21 4:47 PM, Connor Davis wrote:
> 
> On 5/14/21 3:53 PM, Bob Eshleman wrote:
>> On 5/14/21 11:53 AM, Connor Davis wrote:
>>
>>> +
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_RISCV_64
>>> +
>>> +/*
>>> + * RISC-V Layout:
>>> + *   0x0000000000000000 - 0x0000003fffffffff (256GB, L2 slots [0-255])
>>> + *     Unmapped
>>> + *   0x0000004000000000 - 0xffffffbfffffffff
>>> + *     Inaccessible: sv39 only supports 39-bit sign-extended VAs.
>>> + *   0xffffffc000000000 - 0xffffffc0001fffff (2MB, L2 slot [256])
>>> + *     Unmapped
>>> + *   0xffffffc000200000 - 0xffffffc0003fffff (2MB, L2 slot [256])
>>> + *     Xen text, data, bss
>>> + *   0xffffffc000400000 - 0xffffffc0005fffff (2MB, L2 slot [256])
>>> + *     Fixmap: special-purpose 4K mapping slots
>>> + *   0xffffffc000600000 - 0xffffffc0009fffff (4MB, L2 slot [256])
>>> + *     Early boot mapping of FDT
>>> + *   0xffffffc000a00000 - 0xffffffc000bfffff (2MB, L2 slot [256])
>>> + *     Early relocation address, used when relocating Xen and later
>>> + *     for livepatch vmap (if compiled in)
>>> + *   0xffffffc040000000 - 0xffffffc07fffffff (1GB, L2 slot [257])
>>> + *     VMAP: ioremap and early_ioremap
>>> + *   0xffffffc080000000 - 0xffffffc13fffffff (3GB, L2 slots [258..260])
>>> + *     Unmapped
>>> + *   0xffffffc140000000 - 0xffffffc1bfffffff (2GB, L2 slots [261..262])
>>> + *     Frametable: 48 bytes per page for 133GB of RAM
>>> + *   0xffffffc1c0000000 - 0xffffffe1bfffffff (128GB, L2 slots [263..390])
>>> + *     1:1 direct mapping of RAM
>>> + *   0xffffffe1c0000000 - 0xffffffffffffffff (121GB, L2 slots [391..511])
>>> + *     Unmapped
>>> + */
>>> +
>> What is the benefit of moving the layout up to 0xffffffc000000000?
> 
> I thought it made the most sense to use the upper half since Xen is privileged
> 
> and privileged code is typically mapped in the upper half, at least on x86. 
> I'm happy to
> 
> move it down if that would be preferred.
> 
> 

I do like the idea of following norms, but I think I prefer following the ARM 
norm
over the x86 norm unless there is a technical reason not to. Just due to
ARM and RISC-V having much more overlap than x86 and RISC-V.  In this case,
all things being equal, I'd prefer following the ARM model and use the lower 
half.
I definitely like adding the note on the inaccessible region.

Thanks,

-- 
Bobby Eshleman
SE at Vates SAS