[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC] acpi: don't build acpi tables for xen hvm guests
On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 12:10:58 +0100 Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 12:03:42PM +0100, Wei Liu wrote: > > Cc Sander > > > > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 12:54:02PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > > On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 16:22:34 +0100 > > > Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 05:09:52PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 18:28:04 +0100 > > > > > Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Xen's toolstack is in charge of building ACPI tables. Skip acpi > > > > > > table > > > > > > building if running on Xen. > > > > > > > > > > > > This issue is discovered due to direct kernel boot on Xen doesn't > > > > > > boot > > > > > > anymore, because the new ACPI tables cause the guest to exceed its > > > > > > memory allocation limit. > > > > > > > > > > > > Reported-by: Sander Eikelenboom <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Question is: > > > > > Why does xen guest get ACPI tables from QEMU instead of using > > > > > Xen provided ones. > > > > > Maybe it's firmware issue i.e. firmware side shouldn't load > > > > > ACPI tables from QEMU provided fwcfg file and load Xen provided > > > > > instead. > > > > > > > > > > > > > It hasn't come to the point that the guest is booted. QEMU exits when > > > > trying to populate some pages for the guest, at which point the guest > > > > has not yet been started. In a sense, Xen guest doesn't get ACPI from > > > > QEMU because it never gets to that point. > > > > > > > > Direct kernel boot causes fw_cfg to be filled in. pcms->has_acpi_build > > > > defaults to true and acpi_enabled is also true. These make all checks in > > > > acpi_setup pass. QEMU proceeds to build and load ACPI tables (which are > > > > never going to be used by Xen guests), causing the guest to exceeds its > > > > limit. > > > > > > > > Wei. > > > Would something like this fix issue for you? > > > > > > diff --git a/hw/i386/pc_piix.c b/hw/i386/pc_piix.c > > > index a54a468..61b6026 100644 > > > --- a/hw/i386/pc_piix.c > > > +++ b/hw/i386/pc_piix.c > > > @@ -1094,10 +1094,13 @@ DEFINE_PC_MACHINE(isapc, "isapc", pc_init_isa, > > > #ifdef CONFIG_XEN > > > static void xenfv_machine_options(MachineClass *m) > > > { > > > + PCMachineClass *pcmc = PC_MACHINE_CLASS(m); > > > + > > > m->desc = "Xen Fully-virtualized PC"; > > > m->max_cpus = HVM_MAX_VCPUS; > > > m->default_machine_opts = "accel=xen"; > > > m->hot_add_cpu = pc_hot_add_cpu; > > > + pcmc->has_acpi_build = false; > > > } > > > > > > DEFINE_PC_MACHINE(xenfv, "xenfv", pc_xen_hvm_init, > > > > > > > Yes, it does. > > > > (I have a similar patch in my queue already) > > > > Oh, the reason I didn't send it out is because Eduardo suggested we > should use a new field instead of setting has_acpi_build outside of > PCMachineClass init function. > > I have actually gotten around to investigate this option and what is > needed to be done. static void xenfv_machine_options(MachineClass *m) { ... } DEFINE_PC_MACHINE(xenfv, "xenfv", pc_xen_hvm_init, xenfv_machine_options); #define DEFINE_PC_MACHINE(suffix, namestr, initfn, optsfn) \ static void pc_machine_##suffix##_class_init(ObjectClass *oc, void *data) \ { \ MachineClass *mc = MACHINE_CLASS(oc); \ optsfn(mc); \ mc->init = initfn; \ } \ ... So xenfv_machine_options() is a part of pc_machine_xenfv_class_init() _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |