[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH 07/11] x86/setup: Consult the raw E820 for zero sized E820 RAM regions.

[Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> When the Xen hypervisor provides us with an E820, it can
> contain zero sized RAM regions. Those are entries that have
> been trimmed down due to the user utilizing the dom0_mem flag.
> 
> What it means is that there is RAM at those regions, and we
> should _not_ be considering those regions as 1-1 mapping.
> 
> This dom0_mem parameter changes a nice looking E820 like this:
> 
> Xen: 0000000000000000 - 000000000009d000 (usable)
> Xen: 000000000009d000 - 0000000000100000 (reserved)
> Xen: 0000000000100000 - 000000009cf67000 (usable)
> Xen: 000000009cf67000 - 000000009d103000 (ACPI NVS)
> Xen: 000000009d103000 - 000000009f6bd000 (usable)
> Xen: 000000009f6bd000 - 000000009f6bf000 (reserved)
> Xen: 000000009f6bf000 - 000000009f714000 (usable)
> 
> (wherein we would happily set 9d->100, 9cf67->9d103, and
> 9f6bd->9f6bf to identity mapping) .. but with a dom0_mem
> argument (say dom0_mem=700MB) it looks as so:
> 
> Xen: 0000000000000000 - 000000000009d000 (usable)
> Xen: 000000000009d000 - 0000000000100000 (reserved)
> Xen: 0000000000100000 - 000000002bc00000 (usable)
> Xen: 000000009cf67000 - 000000009d103000 (ACPI NVS)
> Xen: 000000009f6bd000 - 000000009f6bf000 (reserved)
> 
> We would set 9d->100, and 9cf670->9f6bf to identity
> mapping. The region from 9d103->9f6bd - which is
> System RAM where a guest could be allocated from,
> would be considered identity which is incorrect.
> 
> [Note: this printout of the E820 is after E820
> sanitization, the raw E820 would look like this]:
> 
> Xen: 0000000000000000 - 000000000009d000 (usable)
> Xen: 000000000009d000 - 0000000000100000 (reserved)
> Xen: 0000000000100000 - 000000002bc00000 (usable)
> Xen: 000000009cf67000 - 000000009d103000 (ACPI NVS)
> Xen: 000000009d103000 - 000000009d103000 (usable)  <===
> Xen: 000000009f6bd000 - 000000009f6bf000 (reserved)
> 
> [Notice the "usable" zero sized region]
> 
> This patch consults the non-sanitized version of the E820
> and checks if there are zero-sized RAM regions right before
> the non-RAM E820 entry we are currently evaluating.
> If so, we utilize the 'ram_end' value to piggyback on the
> code introduced by "xen/setup: Pay attention to zero sized
> E820_RAM regions" patch. Also we add a printk to help
> us determine which region has been set to 1-1 mapping and
> add some sanity checking.
> 
> We must keep those regions zero-size E820 RAM regions
> as is (so missing), otherwise the M2P override code can
> malfunction if a guest grant page is present in those regions.
> 
> Shifting the "xen_set_identity" to be called earlier (so that
> we are using the non-sanitized version of the &e820) does not
> work as we need to take into account the E820 after the
> initial increase/decrease reservation done and addition of a
> new E820 region in 'xen_add_extra_mem').

Can we just call two different functions, one before sanitizing the e820
and another after xen_add_extra_mem?
We could just go through the original e820 and set as identity all the
non-ram regions, after all we don't want to risk setting as identity
valid ram regions.
If the problem is caused by xen_memory_setup modifying the e820, maybe
we could avoid doing that, adding all the extra memory regions to the
balloon without moving them together to the end.
It is just that this code (and xen_memory_setup) lookis a bit too
complicated.



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel