[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC][PATCH 10/13] tools: extend XENMEM_set_memory_map
On 2015/5/15 14:16, Jan Beulich wrote: On 15.05.15 at 04:57, <tiejun.chen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:On 2015/4/20 21:51, Jan Beulich wrote:On 10.04.15 at 11:22, <tiejun.chen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_dom.c +++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_dom.c @@ -787,6 +787,70 @@ out: return rc; } +static int libxl__domain_construct_memmap(libxl_ctx *ctx, + libxl_domain_config *d_config, + uint32_t domid, + struct xc_hvm_build_args *args, + int num_pcidevs, + libxl_device_pci *pcidevs) +{ + unsigned int nr = 0, i; + /* We always own at least one lowmem entry. */ + unsigned int e820_entries = 1; + uint64_t highmem_end = 0, highmem_size = args->mem_size - args->lowmem_size; + struct e820entry *e820 = NULL; + + /* Add all rdm entries. */ + e820_entries += d_config->num_rdms; + + /* If we should have a highmem range. */ + if (highmem_size) + { + highmem_end = (1ull<<32) + highmem_size; + e820_entries++; + } + + e820 = malloc(sizeof(struct e820entry) * e820_entries); + if (!e820) { + return -1; + } + + /* Low memory */ + e820[nr].addr = 0x100000; + e820[nr].size = args->lowmem_size - 0x100000; + e820[nr].type = E820_RAM;If you really mean it to be this lax (not covering the low 1Mb), then you need to explain why in a comment (and the consuming side should also have a similar explanation then).Okay, here may need this, /* * Low RAM starts at least from 1M to make sure all standard regions * of the PC memory map, like BIOS, VGA memory-mapped I/O and vgabios, * have enough space. */ #define GUEST_LOW_MEM_START_DEFAULT 0x100000But this only states a generic fact, but doesn't explain why you can lump together all the different things below 1Mb into a single E820 entry. I'm not sure if I'm misleading you. All different things below 1M is not in a single entry. Here we just construct these mappings: #1. [1M, lowmem_end] #2. [RDM] #3. [4G, highmem_end]Those stuffs below 1M are still constructed with multiple e820 entries by hvmloader. At this point I don't change anything. + nr++; + + /* RDM mapping */ + for (i = 0; i < d_config->num_rdms; i++) { + /* + * We should drop this kind of rdm entry. + */ + if (d_config->rdms[i].flag == LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_FLAG_INVALID) + continue; + + e820[nr].addr = d_config->rdms[i].start; + e820[nr].size = d_config->rdms[i].size; + e820[nr].type = E820_RESERVED; + nr++; + }Is this guaranteed not to produce overlapping entries?Right, I would add this at the beginning, if (e820_entries >= E820MAX) { LOG(ERROR, "Ooops! Too many entries in the memory map!\n"); return -1; }That would be a protection against too many entries, but not against overlapping ones. Are you saying these kinds of mapping? #1. [1M, lowmem_end] #2. [RDM] #3. [4G, highmem_end]Before we call this function we already finish handling RDM with our policy. This means there's no any overlapping here. Thanks TIejun _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |