[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [v7][PATCH 06/16] hvmloader/pci: skip reserved ranges

>>> On 09.07.15 at 07:33, <tiejun.chen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> @@ -50,17 +75,22 @@ void pci_setup(void)
>      /* Resources assignable to PCI devices via BARs. */
>      struct resource {
>          uint64_t base, max;
> -    } *resource, mem_resource, high_mem_resource, io_resource;
> +    } *resource, mem_resource, high_mem_resource, io_resource, 
> exp_mem_resource;

Despite having gone through description and the rest of the patch I
can't seem to be able to guess what "exp_mem" stands for.
Meaningful variable names are quite helpful though, often avoiding
the need for comments.

>      /* Create a list of device BARs in descending order of size. */
>      struct bars {
> -        uint32_t is_64bar;
> +#define PCI_BAR_IS_64BIT        0x1
> +#define PCI_BAR_IS_ALLOCATED    0x2
> +        uint32_t flag;

flags (you already have two)

>          uint32_t devfn;
>          uint32_t bar_reg;
>          uint64_t bar_sz;
>      } *bars = (struct bars *)scratch_start;
> -    unsigned int i, nr_bars = 0;
> -    uint64_t mmio_hole_size = 0;
> +    unsigned int i, j, n, nr_bars = 0;
> +    uint64_t mmio_hole_size = 0, reserved_start, reserved_end, reserved_size;
> +    bool bar32_allocating = 0;
> +    uint64_t mmio32_unallocated_total = 0;
> +    unsigned long cur_pci_mem_start = 0;
>      const char *s;
>      /*
> @@ -222,7 +252,7 @@ void pci_setup(void)
>              if ( i != nr_bars )
>                  memmove(&bars[i+1], &bars[i], (nr_bars-i) * sizeof(*bars));
> -            bars[i].is_64bar = is_64bar;
> +            bars[i].flag = is_64bar ? PCI_BAR_IS_64BIT : 0;
>              bars[i].devfn   = devfn;
>              bars[i].bar_reg = bar_reg;
>              bars[i].bar_sz  = bar_sz;
> @@ -309,29 +339,31 @@ void pci_setup(void)
>      }
>      /* Relocate RAM that overlaps PCI space (in 64k-page chunks). */
> +    cur_pci_mem_start = pci_mem_start;
>      while ( (pci_mem_start >> PAGE_SHIFT) < hvm_info->low_mem_pgend )
> +        relocate_ram_for_pci_memory(cur_pci_mem_start);

Please be consistent which variable to want to use in the loop
(pci_mem_start vs cur_pci_mem_start).

Also, this being the first substantial change to the function makes
clear that you _still_ leave the sizing loop untouched, and instead
make the allocation logic below more complicated. I said before a
number of times that I don't think this helps maintainability of this
already convoluted code. Among other things this manifests itself
in your second call to relocate_ram_for_pci_memory() in no way
playing by the constraints explained a few lines up from here in an
extensive comment.

Therefore I'll not make any further comments on the rest of the
patch, but instead outline an allocation model that I think would
fit our needs: Subject to the constraints mentioned above, set up
a bitmap (maximum size 64k [2Gb = 2^^19 pages needing 2^^19
bits], i.e. reasonably small a memory block). Each bit represents a
page usable for MMIO: First of all you remove the range from
PCI_MEM_END upwards. Then remove all RDM pages. Now do a
first pass over all devices, allocating (in the bitmap) space for only
the 32-bit MMIO BARs, starting with the biggest one(s), by finding
a best fit (i.e. preferably a range not usable by any bigger BAR)
from top down. For example, if you have available


and you're looking for a single page slot, you should end up
picking fa002000.

After this pass you should be able to do RAM relocation in a
single attempt just like we do today (you may still grow the MMIO
window if you know you need to and can fit some of the 64-bit
BARs in there, subject to said constraints; this is in an attempt
to help OSes not comfortable with 64-bit resources).

In a 2nd pass you'd then assign 64-bit resources: If you can fit
them below 4G (you still have the bitmap left of what you've got
available), put them there. Allocation strategy could be the same
as above (biggest first), perhaps allowing for some factoring out
of logic, but here smallest first probably could work equally well.
The main thought to decide between the two is whether it is
better to fit as many (small) or as big (in total) as possible a set
under 4G. I'd generally expect the former (as many as possible,
leaving only a few huge ones to go above 4G) to be the better
approach, but that's more a gut feeling than based on hard data.


Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.