Re: [Xen-devel] BUG: failed to save x86 HVM guest with 1TB ram

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 07/09/15 09:09, wangxin (U) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm tring to hibernate an x86 HVM guest with 1TB ram,
>    [1.VM config]
>    builder = "hvm"
>    name = "suse12_sp3"
>    memory = 1048576
>    vcpus = 16
>    boot = "c"
>    disk = [ '/mnt/sda10/vm/SELS_ide_disk.img,raw,xvda,rw' ]
>    device_model_version = "qemu-xen"
>    vnc = 1
>    vnclisten = '9.51.3.174'
>    vncdisplay = 0
>
> but I get the error messages(see below) from XC:
>    [2.VM saving] xl save -p suse12_sp3 suse12_sp3.save
>    Saving to suse12_sp3.save new xl format (info 0x1/0x0/1309)
>    xc: error: Cannot save this big a guest: Internal error
>    libxl: error: libxl_dom.c:1875:libxl__xc_domain_save_done: saving domain: \
>    domain did not respond to suspend request: Argument list too long
>    libxl: error: libxl_dom.c:2032:remus_teardown_done: Remus: failed to \
>    teardown device for guest with domid 3, rc -8
>    Failed to save domain, resuming domain
>    xc: error: Dom 3 not suspended: (shutdown 0, reason 255): Internal error
>    libxl: error: libxl.c:508:libxl__domain_resume: xc_domain_resume failed \
>    for domain 3: Invalid argument
>
> The error in function xc_domain_save in xc_domain_save.c,
>      /* Get the size of the P2M table */
>      dinfo->p2m_size = xc_domain_maximum_gpfn(xch, dom) + 1;
>
>      if ( dinfo->p2m_size > ~XEN_DOMCTL_PFINFO_LTAB_MASK )
>      {
>          errno = E2BIG;
>          ERROR("Cannot save this big a guest");
>          goto out;
>      }
>
> it may be 1TB ram plus pci-hole space make the MFN wider than limit size.
>
> If I want to save a VM with 1TB ram or larger, what shoud I do? Did anyone
> have tried this before and have some configuration I can refer to?
This is clearly not from Xen 4.6, but the same issue will be present.

The check serves a dual purpose.  In the legacy case, it is to avoid 
clobbering the upper bits of pfn information with pfn type information 
for 32bit toolstacks;  any PFN above 2^28 would have type information 
clobbering the upper bits.  This has been mitigated somewhat in 
migration v2, as pfns are strictly 64bit values, still using the upper 4 
bits for type information, allowing 60 bits for the PFN itself.
The second purpose is just as a limit on toolstack resources. Migration 
requires allocating structures which scale linearly with the size of the 
VM; the biggest of which would be ~1GB for the p2m. Added to this is 
>1GB for the m2p, and suddenly a 32bit toolstack process is looking 
scarce on RAM.
During the development of migration v2, I didn't spend any time 
considering if or how much it was sensible to lift the restriction by, 
so the check was imported wholesale from the legacy code.
For now, I am going to say that it simply doesn't work.  Simply upping 
the limit is only a stopgap measure; an HVM guest can still mess this up 
by playing physmap games and mapping a page of ram at a really high 
(guest) physical address.  Longterm, we need hypervisor support for 
getting a compressed view of guest physical address space, so toolstack 
side resources are proportional to the amount of RAM given to the guest, 
not to how big a guest decides to make its physmap.
~Andrew

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel