[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC][PATCH 04/13] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM
- To: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>, JBeulich@xxxxxxxx
- From: "Chen, Tiejun" <tiejun.chen@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 16:09:53 +0800
- Cc: kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx, ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx, andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx, tim@xxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxx, yang.z.zhang@xxxxxxxxx, Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Mon, 11 May 2015 08:10:03 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>
On 2015/5/8 22:43, Wei Liu wrote:
Sorry for the late review. This series fell through the crack.
Thanks for your review.
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 05:21:55PM +0800, Tiejun Chen wrote:
While building a VM, HVM domain builder provides struct hvm_info_table{}
to help hvmloader. Currently it includes two fields to construct guest
e820 table by hvmloader, low_mem_pgend and high_mem_pgend. So we should
check them to fix any conflict with RAM.
RMRR can reside in address space beyond 4G theoretically, but we never
see this in real world. So in order to avoid breaking highmem layout
How does this break highmem layout?
In most cases highmen is always continuous like [4G, ...] but RMRR is
theoretically beyond 4G but very rarely. Especially we don't see this
happened in real world. So we don't want to such a case breaking the
highmem.
we don't solve highmem conflict. Note this means highmem rmrr could still
be supported if no conflict.
Aren't you actively trying to avoid conflict in libxl?
RMRR is fixed by BIOS so we can't aovid conflict. Here we want to adopt
some good policies to address RMRR. In the case of highmemt, that simple
policy should be enough?
But in the case of lowmem, RMRR probably scatter the whole RAM space.
Especially multiple RMRR entries would worsen this to lead a complicated
memory layout. And then its hard to extend hvm_info_table{} to work
hvmloader out. So here we're trying to figure out a simple solution to
avoid breaking existing layout. So when a conflict occurs,
#1. Above a predefined boundary (default 2G)
- move lowmem_end below reserved region to solve conflict;
I hope this "predefined boundary" is user tunable. I will check later in
this patch if it is the case.
Yes. As we clarified in that comments,
* TODO: Its batter to provide a config parameter for this boundary value.
This mean I would provide a patch address this since currently I just
think this is not a big deal?
#2 Below a predefined boundary (default 2G)
- Check force/try policy.
"force" policy leads to fail libxl. Note when both policies
are specified on a given region, 'force' is always preferred.
"try" policy issue a warning message and also mask this entry INVALID
to indicate we shouldn't expose this entry to hvmloader.
Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@xxxxxxxxx>
---
tools/libxc/include/xenctrl.h | 8 ++
tools/libxc/include/xenguest.h | 3 +-
tools/libxc/xc_domain.c | 40 +++++++++
tools/libxc/xc_hvm_build_x86.c | 28 +++---
tools/libxl/libxl_create.c | 2 +-
tools/libxl/libxl_dm.c | 195 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
tools/libxl/libxl_dom.c | 27 +++++-
tools/libxl/libxl_internal.h | 11 ++-
tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl | 7 ++
9 files changed, 303 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/libxc/include/xenctrl.h b/tools/libxc/include/xenctrl.h
index 59bbe06..299b95f 100644
--- a/tools/libxc/include/xenctrl.h
+++ b/tools/libxc/include/xenctrl.h
@@ -2053,6 +2053,14 @@ int xc_get_device_group(xc_interface *xch,
uint32_t *num_sdevs,
uint32_t *sdev_array);
+struct xen_reserved_device_memory
+*xc_device_get_rdm(xc_interface *xch,
+ uint32_t flag,
+ uint16_t seg,
+ uint8_t bus,
+ uint8_t devfn,
+ unsigned int *nr_entries);
+
int xc_test_assign_device(xc_interface *xch,
uint32_t domid,
uint32_t machine_sbdf);
diff --git a/tools/libxc/include/xenguest.h b/tools/libxc/include/xenguest.h
index 40bbac8..0f1c23b 100644
--- a/tools/libxc/include/xenguest.h
+++ b/tools/libxc/include/xenguest.h
@@ -218,7 +218,8 @@ struct xc_hvm_firmware_module {
};
struct xc_hvm_build_args {
- uint64_t mem_size; /* Memory size in bytes. */
+ uint64_t lowmem_size; /* All low memory size in bytes. */
+ uint64_t mem_size; /* All memory size in bytes. */
Do you find the comment confusing? I think there is no need to change
the comment of mem_size.
Okay.
uint64_t mem_target; /* Memory target in bytes. */
uint64_t mmio_size; /* Size of the MMIO hole in bytes. */
const char *image_file_name; /* File name of the image to load. */
diff --git a/tools/libxc/xc_domain.c b/tools/libxc/xc_domain.c
index 4f8383e..85b18ea 100644
--- a/tools/libxc/xc_domain.c
+++ b/tools/libxc/xc_domain.c
@@ -1665,6 +1665,46 @@ int xc_assign_device(
return do_domctl(xch, &domctl);
}
+struct xen_reserved_device_memory
+*xc_device_get_rdm(xc_interface *xch,
+ uint32_t flag,
+ uint16_t seg,
+ uint8_t bus,
+ uint8_t devfn,
+ unsigned int *nr_entries)
+{
+ struct xen_reserved_device_memory *xrdm = NULL;
+ int rc = xc_reserved_device_memory_map(xch, flag, seg, bus, devfn, xrdm,
+ nr_entries);
+
+ if ( rc < 0 )
+ {
+ if ( errno == ENOBUFS )
+ {
+ if ( (xrdm = malloc(*nr_entries *
+ sizeof(xen_reserved_device_memory_t))) == NULL
)
+ {
+ PERROR("Could not allocate memory.");
+ goto out;
+ }
Don't you leak origin xrdm in this case?
The caller to xc_device_get_rdm always frees this.
And, this style is not very good. Shouldn't the caller allocate enough
memory before hand?
Are you saying the caller to xc_device_get_rdm()? If so, any caller
don't know this, too.
Actually this is just a wrapper of that fundamental hypercall,
xc_reserved_device_memory_map() in patch #2, and based on that, we
always have to first call this to inquire how much memory we really
need. And this is why we have this wrapper since we don't want to
duplicate more codes.
One error handler of this wrapper is just handling ENOBUFS since the
caller never know how much memory we should allocate. So oftentimes we
always set 'entries = 0' to inquire firstly.
Here Jan suggested we may need to figure out a good way to consolidate
xc_reserved_device_memory_map() and its wrapper, xc_device_get_rdm().
But in some ways, that wrapper likes a static function so we just need
to move this into that file associated to its caller, right?
+ rc = xc_reserved_device_memory_map(xch, flag, seg, bus, devfn,
xrdm,
+ nr_entries);
+ if ( rc )
+ {
+ PERROR("Could not get reserved device memory maps.");
+ free(xrdm);
+ xrdm = NULL;
+ }
+ }
+ else {
+ PERROR("Could not get reserved device memory maps.");
+ }
+ }
+
+ out:
+ return xrdm;
+}
+
int xc_get_device_group(
xc_interface *xch,
uint32_t domid,
diff --git a/tools/libxc/xc_hvm_build_x86.c b/tools/libxc/xc_hvm_build_x86.c
index c81a25b..3f87bb3 100644
--- a/tools/libxc/xc_hvm_build_x86.c
+++ b/tools/libxc/xc_hvm_build_x86.c
@@ -89,19 +89,16 @@ static int modules_init(struct xc_hvm_build_args *args,
}
static void build_hvm_info(void *hvm_info_page, uint64_t mem_size,
- uint64_t mmio_start, uint64_t mmio_size)
+ uint64_t lowmem_end)
{
struct hvm_info_table *hvm_info = (struct hvm_info_table *)
(((unsigned char *)hvm_info_page) + HVM_INFO_OFFSET);
- uint64_t lowmem_end = mem_size, highmem_end = 0;
+ uint64_t highmem_end = 0;
uint8_t sum;
int i;
- if ( lowmem_end > mmio_start )
- {
- highmem_end = (1ull<<32) + (lowmem_end - mmio_start);
- lowmem_end = mmio_start;
- }
+ if ( mem_size > lowmem_end )
+ highmem_end = (1ull<<32) + (mem_size - lowmem_end);
memset(hvm_info_page, 0, PAGE_SIZE);
@@ -252,7 +249,7 @@ static int setup_guest(xc_interface *xch,
void *hvm_info_page;
uint32_t *ident_pt;
struct elf_binary elf;
- uint64_t v_start, v_end;
+ uint64_t v_start, v_end, v_lowend, lowmem_end;
uint64_t m_start = 0, m_end = 0;
int rc;
xen_capabilities_info_t caps;
@@ -275,6 +272,7 @@ static int setup_guest(xc_interface *xch,
elf_parse_binary(&elf);
v_start = 0;
v_end = args->mem_size;
+ v_lowend = lowmem_end = args->lowmem_size;
if ( xc_version(xch, XENVER_capabilities, &caps) != 0 )
{
@@ -302,8 +300,11 @@ static int setup_guest(xc_interface *xch,
for ( i = 0; i < nr_pages; i++ )
page_array[i] = i;
- for ( i = mmio_start >> PAGE_SHIFT; i < nr_pages; i++ )
- page_array[i] += mmio_size >> PAGE_SHIFT;
+ /*
+ * This condition 'lowmem_end <= mmio_start' is always true.
+ */
+ for ( i = lowmem_end >> PAGE_SHIFT; i < nr_pages; i++ )
+ page_array[i] += ((1ull << 32) - lowmem_end) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
/*
* Try to claim pages for early warning of insufficient memory available.
@@ -469,7 +470,7 @@ static int setup_guest(xc_interface *xch,
xch, dom, PAGE_SIZE, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
HVM_INFO_PFN)) == NULL )
goto error_out;
- build_hvm_info(hvm_info_page, v_end, mmio_start, mmio_size);
+ build_hvm_info(hvm_info_page, v_end, v_lowend);
munmap(hvm_info_page, PAGE_SIZE);
/* Allocate and clear special pages. */
@@ -588,9 +589,6 @@ int xc_hvm_build(xc_interface *xch, uint32_t domid,
if ( args.mem_target == 0 )
args.mem_target = args.mem_size;
- if ( args.mmio_size == 0 )
- args.mmio_size = HVM_BELOW_4G_MMIO_LENGTH;
-
/* An HVM guest must be initialised with at least 2MB memory. */
if ( args.mem_size < (2ull << 20) || args.mem_target < (2ull << 20) )
return -1;
@@ -634,6 +632,8 @@ int xc_hvm_build_target_mem(xc_interface *xch,
args.mem_size = (uint64_t)memsize << 20;
args.mem_target = (uint64_t)target << 20;
args.image_file_name = image_name;
+ if ( args.mmio_size == 0 )
+ args.mmio_size = HVM_BELOW_4G_MMIO_LENGTH;
return xc_hvm_build(xch, domid, &args);
}
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_create.c b/tools/libxl/libxl_create.c
index 9ed40d4..eab86fd 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_create.c
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_create.c
@@ -430,7 +430,7 @@ int libxl__domain_build(libxl__gc *gc,
switch (info->type) {
case LIBXL_DOMAIN_TYPE_HVM:
- ret = libxl__build_hvm(gc, domid, info, state);
+ ret = libxl__build_hvm(gc, domid, d_config, state);
if (ret)
goto out;
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_dm.c b/tools/libxl/libxl_dm.c
index a8b08f2..9ad04ae 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_dm.c
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_dm.c
@@ -90,6 +90,201 @@ const char *libxl__domain_device_model(libxl__gc *gc,
return dm;
}
+/*
+ * Check whether there exists rdm hole in the specified memory range.
+ * Returns 1 if exists, else returns 0.
+ */
+static int check_rdm_hole(uint64_t start, uint64_t memsize,
+ uint64_t rdm_start, uint64_t rdm_size)
+{
+ if ( start + memsize <= rdm_start || start >= rdm_start + rdm_size )
+ return 0;
+ else
+ return 1;
+}
+
+/*
+ * Check reported RDM regions and handle potential gfn conflicts according
+ * to user preferred policy.
+ */
+int libxl__domain_device_check_rdm(libxl__gc *gc,
+ libxl_domain_config *d_config,
+ uint64_t rdm_mem_guard,
rdm_mem_boundary
Okay.
+ struct xc_hvm_build_args *args)
This function does more than "checking", so a better name is needed.
May be you should split this function to one "build" function and one
"check" function? What do you think?
We'd better keep this big one since this can make our policy
understandable, but I agree we need to rename this like,
libxl__domain_device_construct_rdm()
construct = check + build :)
+{
+ int i, j, conflict;
+ libxl_ctx *ctx = libxl__gc_owner(gc);
You can just use CTX macro.
Good to know.
+ struct xen_reserved_device_memory *xrdm = NULL;
+ unsigned int nr_all_rdms = 0;
+ uint64_t rdm_start, rdm_size, highmem_end = (1ULL << 32);
+ uint32_t type = d_config->b_info.rdm.type;
+ uint16_t seg;
+ uint8_t bus, devfn;
+
+ /* Might not to expose rdm. */
Delete "to".
Fix.
+ if ((type == LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_TYPE_NONE) && !d_config->num_pcidevs)
+ return 0;
+
+ /* Collect all rdm info if exist. */
+ xrdm = xc_device_get_rdm(ctx->xch, LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_TYPE_HOST,
+ 0, 0, 0, &nr_all_rdms);
+ if (!nr_all_rdms)
+ return 0;
+ d_config->rdms = libxl__calloc(gc, nr_all_rdms,
+ sizeof(libxl_device_rdm));
Note that if you use "gc" here the allocated memory will be, well,
garbage collected at some point. If you don't want them to be gc'ed you
should use NOGC.
Sorry, what does that mean by 'garbage collected'?
+ memset(d_config->rdms, 0, sizeof(libxl_device_rdm));
+
+ /* Query all RDM entries in this platform */
+ if (type == LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_TYPE_HOST) {
+ d_config->num_rdms = nr_all_rdms;
+ for (i = 0; i < d_config->num_rdms; i++) {
+ d_config->rdms[i].start =
+ (uint64_t)xrdm[i].start_pfn << XC_PAGE_SHIFT;
+ d_config->rdms[i].size =
+ (uint64_t)xrdm[i].nr_pages << XC_PAGE_SHIFT;
+ d_config->rdms[i].flag = d_config->b_info.rdm.reserve;
+ }
+ } else {
+ d_config->num_rdms = 0;
+ }
And you should move d_config->rdms = libxl__calloc inside that `if'.
That is, don't allocate memory if you don't need it.
We can't since in all cases we need to preallocate this, and then we
will handle this according to our policy.
+ free(xrdm);
+
+ /* Query RDM entries per-device */
+ for (i = 0; i < d_config->num_pcidevs; i++) {
+ unsigned int nr_entries = 0;
Maybe I should restate this,
unsigned int nr_entries;
+ bool new = true;
+ seg = d_config->pcidevs[i].domain;
+ bus = d_config->pcidevs[i].bus;
+ devfn = PCI_DEVFN(d_config->pcidevs[i].dev, d_config->pcidevs[i].func);
+ nr_entries = 0;
You've already initialised this variable.
We need to set this as zero to start.
+ xrdm = xc_device_get_rdm(ctx->xch, LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_TYPE_NONE,
+ seg, bus, devfn, &nr_entries);
+ /* No RDM to associated with this device. */
+ if (!nr_entries)
+ continue;
+
+ /* Need to check whether this entry is already saved in the array.
+ * This could come from two cases:
+ *
+ * - user may configure to get all RMRRs in this platform, which
+ * is already queried before this point
Formatting.
Are you saying this?
+ /* Need to check whether this entry is already saved in the array.
=>
/*
* Need to check whether this entry is already saved in the
array.
* This could come from two cases:
+ * - or two assigned devices may share one RMRR entry
+ *
+ * different policies may be configured on the same RMRR due to above
+ * two cases. We choose a simple policy to always favor stricter policy
+ */
+ for (j = 0; j < d_config->num_rdms; j++) {
+ if (d_config->rdms[j].start ==
+ (uint64_t)xrdm[0].start_pfn << XC_PAGE_SHIFT)
+ {
+ if (d_config->rdms[j].flag != LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_FLAG_FORCE)
+ d_config->rdms[j].flag = d_config->pcidevs[i].rdm_reserve;
+ new = false;
+ break;
+ }
+ }
+
+ if (new) {
+ if (d_config->num_rdms > nr_all_rdms - 1) {
+ LIBXL__LOG(CTX, LIBXL__LOG_ERROR, "Exceed rdm array
boundary!\n");
LOG(ERROR, ...)
Fixed.
+ free(xrdm);
+ return -1;
Please use goto out idiom.
We just have two 'return -1' differently so I'm not sure its worth doing
this.
+ }
+
+ /*
+ * This is a new entry.
+ */
/* This is a new entry. */
Fixed.
+ d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms].start =
+ (uint64_t)xrdm[0].start_pfn << XC_PAGE_SHIFT;
+ d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms].size =
+ (uint64_t)xrdm[0].nr_pages << XC_PAGE_SHIFT;
+ d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms].flag =
d_config->pcidevs[i].rdm_reserve;
+ d_config->num_rdms++;
Does this work? I don't see you reallocate memory.
Like I replied above we always preallocate this at the beginning.
+ }
+ free(xrdm);
Bug: you free xrdm several times.
No any conflict.
What I did is that I would free once I finish to calling every
xc_device_get_rdm().
Please fix obvious bugs and do simple tests before posting. That would
save you another round of back and forth.
+ }
+
+ /* Fix highmem. */
+ if (args->mem_size > args->lowmem_size)
+ highmem_end += (args->mem_size - args->lowmem_size);
It would be clearer if you just do
highmem_end = (1ULL << 32) + (args->mem_size - args->lowmem_size);
Okay.
And please have a blank line in between this assignment and following
comment.
As Jan commented previously I already push this at the beginning of this
function.
+ /* Next step is to check and avoid potential conflict between RDM entries
+ * and guest RAM. To avoid intrusive impact to existing memory layout
+ * {lowmem, mmio, highmem} which is passed around various function blocks,
+ * below conflicts are not handled which are rare and handling them would
+ * lead to a more scattered layout:
+ * - RMRR in highmem area (>4G)
+ * - RMRR lower than a defined memory boundary (e.g. 2G)
+ * Otherwise for conflicts between boundary and 4G, we'll simply move
lowmem
+ * end below reserved region to solve conflict.
+ *
+ * If a conflict is detected on a given RMRR entry, an error will be
+ * returned.
+ * If 'force' policy is specified. Or conflict is treated as a warning if
+ * 'try' policy is specified, and we also mark this as INVALID not to
expose
+ * this entry to hvmloader.
+ *
+ * Firstly we should check the case of rdm < 4G because we may need to
+ * expand highmem_end.
Is this strategy agreed in previous discussion? How future-proof is this
Yes, this is based on that design.
strategy?
I don't see any ovious futhure proof is prompted in this RFC.
+ */
+ for (i = 0; i < d_config->num_rdms; i++) {
+ rdm_start = d_config->rdms[i].start;
+ rdm_size = d_config->rdms[i].size;
+ conflict = check_rdm_hole(0, args->lowmem_size, rdm_start, rdm_size);
+
+ if (!conflict)
+ continue;
+
+ /*
+ * Just check if RDM > our memory boundary
+ */
A one line comment is good enough.
Fixed.
+ if (d_config->rdms[i].start > rdm_mem_guard) {
+ /*
+ * We will move downwards lowmem_end so we have to expand
+ * highmem_end.
+ */
+ highmem_end += (args->lowmem_size - rdm_start);
+ /* Now move downwards lowmem_end. */
+ args->lowmem_size = rdm_start;
+ }
+ }
+
+ /*
+ * Finally we can take same policy to check lowmem(< 2G) and
+ * highmem adjusted above.
+ */
+ for (i = 0; i < d_config->num_rdms; i++) {
+ rdm_start = d_config->rdms[i].start;
+ rdm_size = d_config->rdms[i].size;
+ /* Does this entry conflict with lowmem? */
+ conflict = check_rdm_hole(0, args->lowmem_size,
+ rdm_start, rdm_size);
+ /* Does this entry conflict with highmem? */
+ conflict |= check_rdm_hole((1ULL<<32), highmem_end,
+ rdm_start, rdm_size);
+
+ if (!conflict)
+ continue;
+
+ if(d_config->rdms[i].flag == LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_FLAG_FORCE) {
+ LIBXL__LOG(CTX, LIBXL__LOG_ERROR, "RDM conflict at 0x%lx.\n",
+ d_config->rdms[i].start);
LOG(ERROR, ...)
Fixed.
+ return -1;
Use goto out style.
See above.
+ } else {
+ LIBXL__LOG(CTX, LIBXL__LOG_WARNING,
+ "Ignoring RDM conflict at 0x%lx.\n",
+ d_config->rdms[i].start);
+
+ /*
+ * Then mask this INVALID to indicate we shouldn't expose this
+ * to hvmloader.
+ */
+ d_config->rdms[i].flag = LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_FLAG_INVALID;
+ }
+ }
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
const libxl_vnc_info *libxl__dm_vnc(const libxl_domain_config *guest_config)
{
const libxl_vnc_info *vnc = NULL;
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_dom.c b/tools/libxl/libxl_dom.c
index a16d4a1..ee67282 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_dom.c
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_dom.c
@@ -788,12 +788,14 @@ out:
}
int libxl__build_hvm(libxl__gc *gc, uint32_t domid,
- libxl_domain_build_info *info,
+ libxl_domain_config *d_config,
libxl__domain_build_state *state)
{
libxl_ctx *ctx = libxl__gc_owner(gc);
struct xc_hvm_build_args args = {};
int ret, rc = ERROR_FAIL;
+ libxl_domain_build_info *const info = &d_config->b_info;
+ uint64_t rdm_mem_boundary, mmio_start;
memset(&args, 0, sizeof(struct xc_hvm_build_args));
/* The params from the configuration file are in Mb, which are then
@@ -802,6 +804,8 @@ int libxl__build_hvm(libxl__gc *gc, uint32_t domid,
* Do all this in one step here...
*/
args.mem_size = (uint64_t)(info->max_memkb - info->video_memkb) << 10;
+ args.lowmem_size = (args.mem_size > (1ULL << 32)) ?
+ (1ULL << 32) : args.mem_size;
args.mem_target = (uint64_t)(info->target_memkb - info->video_memkb) <<
10;
args.claim_enabled = libxl_defbool_val(info->claim_mode);
if (info->u.hvm.mmio_hole_memkb) {
@@ -811,6 +815,27 @@ int libxl__build_hvm(libxl__gc *gc, uint32_t domid,
if (max_ram_below_4g < HVM_BELOW_4G_MMIO_START)
args.mmio_size = info->u.hvm.mmio_hole_memkb << 10;
}
+
+ if (args.mmio_size == 0)
+ args.mmio_size = HVM_BELOW_4G_MMIO_LENGTH;
+ mmio_start = (1ull << 32) - args.mmio_size;
+
+ if (args.lowmem_size > mmio_start)
+ args.lowmem_size = mmio_start;
+
+ /*
+ * We'd like to set a memory boundary to determine if we need to check
+ * any overlap with reserved device memory.
+ *
+ * TODO: we will add a config parameter for this boundary value next.
+ */
Yes, please do so and properly document it.
Yes, I will try.
Thanks
Tiejun
+ rdm_mem_boundary = 0x80000000;
+ ret = libxl__domain_device_check_rdm(gc, d_config, rdm_mem_boundary,
&args);
+ if (ret) {
+ LOG(ERROR, "checking reserved device memory failed");
+ goto out;
+ }
+
if (libxl__domain_firmware(gc, info, &args)) {
LOG(ERROR, "initializing domain firmware failed");
goto out;
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_internal.h b/tools/libxl/libxl_internal.h
index 934465a..64d05b3 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_internal.h
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_internal.h
@@ -985,7 +985,7 @@ _hidden int libxl__build_post(libxl__gc *gc, uint32_t domid,
_hidden int libxl__build_pv(libxl__gc *gc, uint32_t domid,
libxl_domain_build_info *info, libxl__domain_build_state *state);
_hidden int libxl__build_hvm(libxl__gc *gc, uint32_t domid,
- libxl_domain_build_info *info,
+ libxl_domain_config *d_config,
libxl__domain_build_state *state);
_hidden int libxl__qemu_traditional_cmd(libxl__gc *gc, uint32_t domid,
@@ -1480,6 +1480,15 @@ _hidden int libxl__need_xenpv_qemu(libxl__gc *gc,
int nr_channels, libxl_device_channel *channels);
/*
+ * This function will fix reserved device memory conflict
+ * according to user's configuration.
+ */
+_hidden int libxl__domain_device_check_rdm(libxl__gc *gc,
+ libxl_domain_config *d_config,
+ uint64_t rdm_mem_guard,
+ struct xc_hvm_build_args *args);
+
+/*
* This function will cause the whole libxl process to hang
* if the device model does not respond. It is deprecated.
*
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl b/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl
index 5786455..218931b 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl
@@ -541,6 +541,12 @@ libxl_device_pci = Struct("device_pci", [
("rdm_reserve", libxl_rdm_reserve_flag),
])
+libxl_device_rdm = Struct("device_rdm", [
+ ("start", uint64),
+ ("size", uint64),
+ ("flag", bool),
+ ])
+
libxl_device_vtpm = Struct("device_vtpm", [
("backend_domid", libxl_domid),
("backend_domname", string),
@@ -567,6 +573,7 @@ libxl_domain_config = Struct("domain_config", [
("disks", Array(libxl_device_disk, "num_disks")),
("nics", Array(libxl_device_nic, "num_nics")),
("pcidevs", Array(libxl_device_pci, "num_pcidevs")),
+ ("rdms", Array(libxl_device_rdm, "num_rdms")),
("vfbs", Array(libxl_device_vfb, "num_vfbs")),
("vkbs", Array(libxl_device_vkb, "num_vkbs")),
("vtpms", Array(libxl_device_vtpm, "num_vtpms")),
--
1.9.1
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
