| Message ID | 20190409102935.28292-9-shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | ARM virt: ACPI memory hotplug support | expand |
On 04/09/19 12:29, Shameer Kolothum wrote: > This patch adds memory nodes corresponding to PC-DIMM regions. > This will enable support for cold plugged device memory for Guests > with DT boot. > > Signed-off-by: Shameer Kolothum <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com> > Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com> > --- > hw/arm/boot.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/hw/arm/boot.c b/hw/arm/boot.c > index 8c840ba..150e1ed 100644 > --- a/hw/arm/boot.c > +++ b/hw/arm/boot.c > @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ > #include "sysemu/numa.h" > #include "hw/boards.h" > #include "hw/loader.h" > +#include "hw/mem/memory-device.h" > #include "elf.h" > #include "sysemu/device_tree.h" > #include "qemu/config-file.h" > @@ -538,6 +539,41 @@ static void fdt_add_psci_node(void *fdt) > qemu_fdt_setprop_cell(fdt, "/psci", "migrate", migrate_fn); > } > > +static int fdt_add_hotpluggable_memory_nodes(void *fdt, > + uint32_t acells, uint32_t scells) { > + MemoryDeviceInfoList *info, *info_list = qmp_memory_device_list(); > + MemoryDeviceInfo *mi; > + int ret = 0; > + > + for (info = info_list; info != NULL; info = info->next) { > + mi = info->value; > + switch (mi->type) { > + case MEMORY_DEVICE_INFO_KIND_DIMM: > + { > + PCDIMMDeviceInfo *di = mi->u.dimm.data; > + > + ret = fdt_add_memory_node(fdt, acells, di->addr, scells, > + di->size, di->node, true); > + if (ret) { > + fprintf(stderr, > + "couldn't add PCDIMM /memory@%"PRIx64" node\n", > + di->addr); > + goto out; > + } > + break; > + } > + default: > + fprintf(stderr, "%s memory nodes are not yet supported\n", > + MemoryDeviceInfoKind_str(mi->type)); > + ret = -ENOENT; > + goto out; > + } > + } > +out: > + qapi_free_MemoryDeviceInfoList(info_list); > + return ret; > +} > + > int arm_load_dtb(hwaddr addr, const struct arm_boot_info *binfo, > hwaddr addr_limit, AddressSpace *as) > { > @@ -637,6 +673,12 @@ int arm_load_dtb(hwaddr addr, const struct arm_boot_info *binfo, > } > } > > + rc = fdt_add_hotpluggable_memory_nodes(fdt, acells, scells); > + if (rc < 0) { > + fprintf(stderr, "couldn't add hotpluggable memory nodes\n"); > + goto fail; > + } > + > rc = fdt_path_offset(fdt, "/chosen"); > if (rc < 0) { > qemu_fdt_add_subnode(fdt, "/chosen"); > Given patches #7 and #8, as I understand them, the firmware cannot distinguish hotpluggable & present, from hotpluggable & absent. The firmware can only skip both hotpluggable cases. That's fine in that the firmware will hog neither type -- but is that OK for the OS as well, for both ACPI boot and DT boot? Consider in particular the "hotpluggable & present, ACPI boot" case. Assuming we modify the firmware to skip "hotpluggable" altogether, the UEFI memmap will not include the range despite it being present at boot. Presumably, ACPI will refer to the range somehow, however. Will that not confuse the OS? When Igor raised this earlier, I suggested that hotpluggable-and-present should be added by the firmware, but also allocated immediately, as EfiBootServicesData type memory. This will prevent other drivers in the firmware from allocating AcpiNVS or Reserved chunks from the same memory range, the UEFI memmap will contain the range as EfiBootServicesData, and then the OS can release that allocation in one go early during boot. But this really has to be clarified from the Linux kernel's expectations. Please formalize all of the following cases: OS boot (DT/ACPI) hotpluggable & ... GetMemoryMap() should report as DT/ACPI should report as ----------------- ------------------ ------------------------------- ------------------------ DT present ? ? DT absent ? ? ACPI present ? ? ACPI absent ? ? Again, this table is dictated by Linux. Thanks Laszlo
> -----Original Message----- > From: Laszlo Ersek [mailto:lersek@redhat.com] > Sent: 09 April 2019 16:09 > To: Shameerali Kolothum Thodi <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>; > qemu-devel@nongnu.org; qemu-arm@nongnu.org; eric.auger@redhat.com; > imammedo@redhat.com > Cc: peter.maydell@linaro.org; shannon.zhaosl@gmail.com; > sameo@linux.intel.com; sebastien.boeuf@intel.com; xuwei (O) > <xuwei5@huawei.com>; ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org; Linuxarm > <linuxarm@huawei.com> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 8/8] hw/arm/boot: Expose the PC-DIMM nodes in the > DT > > On 04/09/19 12:29, Shameer Kolothum wrote: > > This patch adds memory nodes corresponding to PC-DIMM regions. > > This will enable support for cold plugged device memory for Guests > > with DT boot. > > > > Signed-off-by: Shameer Kolothum <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com> > > Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com> > > --- > > hw/arm/boot.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/hw/arm/boot.c b/hw/arm/boot.c > > index 8c840ba..150e1ed 100644 > > --- a/hw/arm/boot.c > > +++ b/hw/arm/boot.c > > @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ > > #include "sysemu/numa.h" > > #include "hw/boards.h" > > #include "hw/loader.h" > > +#include "hw/mem/memory-device.h" > > #include "elf.h" > > #include "sysemu/device_tree.h" > > #include "qemu/config-file.h" > > @@ -538,6 +539,41 @@ static void fdt_add_psci_node(void *fdt) > > qemu_fdt_setprop_cell(fdt, "/psci", "migrate", migrate_fn); > > } > > > > +static int fdt_add_hotpluggable_memory_nodes(void *fdt, > > + uint32_t acells, > uint32_t scells) { > > + MemoryDeviceInfoList *info, *info_list = qmp_memory_device_list(); > > + MemoryDeviceInfo *mi; > > + int ret = 0; > > + > > + for (info = info_list; info != NULL; info = info->next) { > > + mi = info->value; > > + switch (mi->type) { > > + case MEMORY_DEVICE_INFO_KIND_DIMM: > > + { > > + PCDIMMDeviceInfo *di = mi->u.dimm.data; > > + > > + ret = fdt_add_memory_node(fdt, acells, di->addr, scells, > > + di->size, di->node, true); > > + if (ret) { > > + fprintf(stderr, > > + "couldn't add PCDIMM /memory@%"PRIx64" > node\n", > > + di->addr); > > + goto out; > > + } > > + break; > > + } > > + default: > > + fprintf(stderr, "%s memory nodes are not yet supported\n", > > + MemoryDeviceInfoKind_str(mi->type)); > > + ret = -ENOENT; > > + goto out; > > + } > > + } > > +out: > > + qapi_free_MemoryDeviceInfoList(info_list); > > + return ret; > > +} > > + > > int arm_load_dtb(hwaddr addr, const struct arm_boot_info *binfo, > > hwaddr addr_limit, AddressSpace *as) > > { > > @@ -637,6 +673,12 @@ int arm_load_dtb(hwaddr addr, const struct > arm_boot_info *binfo, > > } > > } > > > > + rc = fdt_add_hotpluggable_memory_nodes(fdt, acells, scells); > > + if (rc < 0) { > > + fprintf(stderr, "couldn't add hotpluggable memory nodes\n"); > > + goto fail; > > + } > > + > > rc = fdt_path_offset(fdt, "/chosen"); > > if (rc < 0) { > > qemu_fdt_add_subnode(fdt, "/chosen"); > > > > > Given patches #7 and #8, as I understand them, the firmware cannot > distinguish hotpluggable & present, from hotpluggable & absent. The firmware > can only skip both hotpluggable cases. That's fine in that the firmware will hog > neither type -- but is that OK for the OS as well, for both ACPI boot and DT > boot? Right. This only handles the hotpluggable-and-present condition. > Consider in particular the "hotpluggable & present, ACPI boot" case. Assuming > we modify the firmware to skip "hotpluggable" altogether, the UEFI memmap > will not include the range despite it being present at boot. Presumably, ACPI > will refer to the range somehow, however. Will that not confuse the OS? From my testing so far, without patches #7 and #8(ie, no UEFI memmap entry), ACPI boots fine. I think ACPI only relies on aml and SRAT. > When Igor raised this earlier, I suggested that hotpluggable-and-present > should be added by the firmware, but also allocated immediately, as > EfiBootServicesData type memory. This will prevent other drivers in the > firmware from allocating AcpiNVS or Reserved chunks from the same memory > range, the UEFI memmap will contain the range as EfiBootServicesData, and > then the OS can release that allocation in one go early during boot. Ok. Agree that hotpluggable-and-present case it may make sense to make use of that memory rather than just hiding it altogether. On another note, Does hotpluggable-and-absent case make any valid use case for a DT boot? I am not sure how we can hot-add memory in the case of DT boot later. I have not verified the sysfs probe interface yet and there are discussions of dropping that interface altogether. > But this really has to be clarified from the Linux kernel's expectations. Please > formalize all of the following cases: Sure. I will wait for suggestions here and work on it. Thanks, Shameer > OS boot (DT/ACPI) hotpluggable & ... GetMemoryMap() should report as > DT/ACPI should report as > ----------------- ------------------ ------------------------------- ------------------------ > DT > present ? ? > DT > absent ? ? > ACPI > present ? ? > ACPI > absent ? ? > > Again, this table is dictated by Linux. > > Thanks > Laszlo
> -----Original Message----- > From: Linuxarm [mailto:linuxarm-bounces@huawei.com] On Behalf Of > Shameerali Kolothum Thodi > Sent: 10 April 2019 09:49 > To: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>; qemu-devel@nongnu.org; > qemu-arm@nongnu.org; eric.auger@redhat.com; imammedo@redhat.com > Cc: peter.maydell@linaro.org; sameo@linux.intel.com; > ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org; Linuxarm <linuxarm@huawei.com>; > shannon.zhaosl@gmail.com; sebastien.boeuf@intel.com; xuwei (O) > <xuwei5@huawei.com> > Subject: RE: [PATCH v4 8/8] hw/arm/boot: Expose the PC-DIMM nodes in the > DT > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Laszlo Ersek [mailto:lersek@redhat.com] > > Sent: 09 April 2019 16:09 > > To: Shameerali Kolothum Thodi <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>; > > qemu-devel@nongnu.org; qemu-arm@nongnu.org; eric.auger@redhat.com; > > imammedo@redhat.com > > Cc: peter.maydell@linaro.org; shannon.zhaosl@gmail.com; > > sameo@linux.intel.com; sebastien.boeuf@intel.com; xuwei (O) > > <xuwei5@huawei.com>; ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org; Linuxarm > > <linuxarm@huawei.com> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 8/8] hw/arm/boot: Expose the PC-DIMM nodes in the > > DT > > > > On 04/09/19 12:29, Shameer Kolothum wrote: > > > This patch adds memory nodes corresponding to PC-DIMM regions. > > > This will enable support for cold plugged device memory for Guests > > > with DT boot. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Shameer Kolothum > <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com> > > > Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com> > > > --- > > > hw/arm/boot.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/hw/arm/boot.c b/hw/arm/boot.c > > > index 8c840ba..150e1ed 100644 > > > --- a/hw/arm/boot.c > > > +++ b/hw/arm/boot.c > > > @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ > > > #include "sysemu/numa.h" > > > #include "hw/boards.h" > > > #include "hw/loader.h" > > > +#include "hw/mem/memory-device.h" > > > #include "elf.h" > > > #include "sysemu/device_tree.h" > > > #include "qemu/config-file.h" > > > @@ -538,6 +539,41 @@ static void fdt_add_psci_node(void *fdt) > > > qemu_fdt_setprop_cell(fdt, "/psci", "migrate", migrate_fn); > > > } > > > > > > +static int fdt_add_hotpluggable_memory_nodes(void *fdt, > > > + uint32_t acells, > > uint32_t scells) { > > > + MemoryDeviceInfoList *info, *info_list = qmp_memory_device_list(); > > > + MemoryDeviceInfo *mi; > > > + int ret = 0; > > > + > > > + for (info = info_list; info != NULL; info = info->next) { > > > + mi = info->value; > > > + switch (mi->type) { > > > + case MEMORY_DEVICE_INFO_KIND_DIMM: > > > + { > > > + PCDIMMDeviceInfo *di = mi->u.dimm.data; > > > + > > > + ret = fdt_add_memory_node(fdt, acells, di->addr, scells, > > > + di->size, di->node, true); > > > + if (ret) { > > > + fprintf(stderr, > > > + "couldn't add PCDIMM > /memory@%"PRIx64" > > node\n", > > > + di->addr); > > > + goto out; > > > + } > > > + break; > > > + } > > > + default: > > > + fprintf(stderr, "%s memory nodes are not yet supported\n", > > > + MemoryDeviceInfoKind_str(mi->type)); > > > + ret = -ENOENT; > > > + goto out; > > > + } > > > + } > > > +out: > > > + qapi_free_MemoryDeviceInfoList(info_list); > > > + return ret; > > > +} > > > + > > > int arm_load_dtb(hwaddr addr, const struct arm_boot_info *binfo, > > > hwaddr addr_limit, AddressSpace *as) > > > { > > > @@ -637,6 +673,12 @@ int arm_load_dtb(hwaddr addr, const struct > > arm_boot_info *binfo, > > > } > > > } > > > > > > + rc = fdt_add_hotpluggable_memory_nodes(fdt, acells, scells); > > > + if (rc < 0) { > > > + fprintf(stderr, "couldn't add hotpluggable memory nodes\n"); > > > + goto fail; > > > + } > > > + > > > rc = fdt_path_offset(fdt, "/chosen"); > > > if (rc < 0) { > > > qemu_fdt_add_subnode(fdt, "/chosen"); > > > > > > > > > Given patches #7 and #8, as I understand them, the firmware cannot > > distinguish hotpluggable & present, from hotpluggable & absent. The > firmware > > can only skip both hotpluggable cases. That's fine in that the firmware will > hog > > neither type -- but is that OK for the OS as well, for both ACPI boot and DT > > boot? > > Right. This only handles the hotpluggable-and-present condition. > > > Consider in particular the "hotpluggable & present, ACPI boot" case. > Assuming > > we modify the firmware to skip "hotpluggable" altogether, the UEFI memmap > > will not include the range despite it being present at boot. Presumably, ACPI > > will refer to the range somehow, however. Will that not confuse the OS? > > From my testing so far, without patches #7 and #8(ie, no UEFI memmap entry), > ACPI boots fine. I think ACPI only relies on aml and SRAT. > > > When Igor raised this earlier, I suggested that hotpluggable-and-present > > should be added by the firmware, but also allocated immediately, as > > EfiBootServicesData type memory. This will prevent other drivers in the > > firmware from allocating AcpiNVS or Reserved chunks from the same memory > > range, the UEFI memmap will contain the range as EfiBootServicesData, and > > then the OS can release that allocation in one go early during boot. > > Ok. Agree that hotpluggable-and-present case it may make sense to make use > of > that memory rather than just hiding it altogether. > > On another note, Does hotpluggable-and-absent case make any valid use case > for > a DT boot? I am not sure how we can hot-add memory in the case of DT boot > later. > I have not verified the sysfs probe interface yet and there are discussions of > dropping > that interface altogether. > > > But this really has to be clarified from the Linux kernel's expectations. Please > > formalize all of the following cases: > > Sure. I will wait for suggestions here and work on it. To continue the discussion on this, this is my proposal, OS boot (DT/ACPI) hotpluggable & ... GetMemoryMap() should report as DT/ACPI should report as ----------------- ------------------ ------------------------------- ------------------------ DT present Normal memory Report as normal DT memory node DT absent Not reported Not reported. ACPI present EfiBootServicesData memory SRAT specifies the memory region and device memory discovered during Guest boot up through AML. ACPI absent Not reported SRAT specifies the memory region. Supports hot add later. Not sure I got all the scenarios correct here, please take a look and let me know. Thanks, Shameer > > Thanks, > Shameer > > > OS boot (DT/ACPI) hotpluggable & ... GetMemoryMap() should report as > > DT/ACPI should report as > > ----------------- ------------------ ------------------------------- ------------------------ > > DT > > present ? ? > > DT > > absent ? ? > > ACPI > > present ? ? > > ACPI > > absent ? ? > > > > Again, this table is dictated by Linux. > > > > Thanks > > Laszlo > _______________________________________________ > Linuxarm mailing list > Linuxarm@huawei.com > http://hulk.huawei.com/mailman/listinfo/linuxarm
Hi Shameer, On 05/03/19 15:35, Shameerali Kolothum Thodi wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Linuxarm [mailto:linuxarm-bounces@huawei.com] On Behalf Of >> Shameerali Kolothum Thodi >> Sent: 10 April 2019 09:49 >> To: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>; qemu-devel@nongnu.org; >> qemu-arm@nongnu.org; eric.auger@redhat.com; imammedo@redhat.com >> Cc: peter.maydell@linaro.org; sameo@linux.intel.com; >> ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org; Linuxarm <linuxarm@huawei.com>; >> shannon.zhaosl@gmail.com; sebastien.boeuf@intel.com; xuwei (O) >> <xuwei5@huawei.com> >> Subject: RE: [PATCH v4 8/8] hw/arm/boot: Expose the PC-DIMM nodes in the >> DT >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Laszlo Ersek [mailto:lersek@redhat.com] >>> Sent: 09 April 2019 16:09 >>> To: Shameerali Kolothum Thodi <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>; >>> qemu-devel@nongnu.org; qemu-arm@nongnu.org; eric.auger@redhat.com; >>> imammedo@redhat.com >>> Cc: peter.maydell@linaro.org; shannon.zhaosl@gmail.com; >>> sameo@linux.intel.com; sebastien.boeuf@intel.com; xuwei (O) >>> <xuwei5@huawei.com>; ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org; Linuxarm >>> <linuxarm@huawei.com> >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 8/8] hw/arm/boot: Expose the PC-DIMM nodes in the >>> DT >>> >>> On 04/09/19 12:29, Shameer Kolothum wrote: >>>> This patch adds memory nodes corresponding to PC-DIMM regions. >>>> This will enable support for cold plugged device memory for Guests >>>> with DT boot. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Shameer Kolothum >> <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com> >>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com> >>>> --- >>>> hw/arm/boot.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/hw/arm/boot.c b/hw/arm/boot.c >>>> index 8c840ba..150e1ed 100644 >>>> --- a/hw/arm/boot.c >>>> +++ b/hw/arm/boot.c >>>> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ >>>> #include "sysemu/numa.h" >>>> #include "hw/boards.h" >>>> #include "hw/loader.h" >>>> +#include "hw/mem/memory-device.h" >>>> #include "elf.h" >>>> #include "sysemu/device_tree.h" >>>> #include "qemu/config-file.h" >>>> @@ -538,6 +539,41 @@ static void fdt_add_psci_node(void *fdt) >>>> qemu_fdt_setprop_cell(fdt, "/psci", "migrate", migrate_fn); >>>> } >>>> >>>> +static int fdt_add_hotpluggable_memory_nodes(void *fdt, >>>> + uint32_t acells, >>> uint32_t scells) { >>>> + MemoryDeviceInfoList *info, *info_list = qmp_memory_device_list(); >>>> + MemoryDeviceInfo *mi; >>>> + int ret = 0; >>>> + >>>> + for (info = info_list; info != NULL; info = info->next) { >>>> + mi = info->value; >>>> + switch (mi->type) { >>>> + case MEMORY_DEVICE_INFO_KIND_DIMM: >>>> + { >>>> + PCDIMMDeviceInfo *di = mi->u.dimm.data; >>>> + >>>> + ret = fdt_add_memory_node(fdt, acells, di->addr, scells, >>>> + di->size, di->node, true); >>>> + if (ret) { >>>> + fprintf(stderr, >>>> + "couldn't add PCDIMM >> /memory@%"PRIx64" >>> node\n", >>>> + di->addr); >>>> + goto out; >>>> + } >>>> + break; >>>> + } >>>> + default: >>>> + fprintf(stderr, "%s memory nodes are not yet supported\n", >>>> + MemoryDeviceInfoKind_str(mi->type)); >>>> + ret = -ENOENT; >>>> + goto out; >>>> + } >>>> + } >>>> +out: >>>> + qapi_free_MemoryDeviceInfoList(info_list); >>>> + return ret; >>>> +} >>>> + >>>> int arm_load_dtb(hwaddr addr, const struct arm_boot_info *binfo, >>>> hwaddr addr_limit, AddressSpace *as) >>>> { >>>> @@ -637,6 +673,12 @@ int arm_load_dtb(hwaddr addr, const struct >>> arm_boot_info *binfo, >>>> } >>>> } >>>> >>>> + rc = fdt_add_hotpluggable_memory_nodes(fdt, acells, scells); >>>> + if (rc < 0) { >>>> + fprintf(stderr, "couldn't add hotpluggable memory nodes\n"); >>>> + goto fail; >>>> + } >>>> + >>>> rc = fdt_path_offset(fdt, "/chosen"); >>>> if (rc < 0) { >>>> qemu_fdt_add_subnode(fdt, "/chosen"); >>>> >>> >>> >>> Given patches #7 and #8, as I understand them, the firmware cannot >>> distinguish hotpluggable & present, from hotpluggable & absent. The >> firmware >>> can only skip both hotpluggable cases. That's fine in that the firmware will >> hog >>> neither type -- but is that OK for the OS as well, for both ACPI boot and DT >>> boot? >> >> Right. This only handles the hotpluggable-and-present condition. >> >>> Consider in particular the "hotpluggable & present, ACPI boot" case. >> Assuming >>> we modify the firmware to skip "hotpluggable" altogether, the UEFI memmap >>> will not include the range despite it being present at boot. Presumably, ACPI >>> will refer to the range somehow, however. Will that not confuse the OS? >> >> From my testing so far, without patches #7 and #8(ie, no UEFI memmap entry), >> ACPI boots fine. I think ACPI only relies on aml and SRAT. >> >>> When Igor raised this earlier, I suggested that hotpluggable-and-present >>> should be added by the firmware, but also allocated immediately, as >>> EfiBootServicesData type memory. This will prevent other drivers in the >>> firmware from allocating AcpiNVS or Reserved chunks from the same memory >>> range, the UEFI memmap will contain the range as EfiBootServicesData, and >>> then the OS can release that allocation in one go early during boot. >> >> Ok. Agree that hotpluggable-and-present case it may make sense to make use >> of >> that memory rather than just hiding it altogether. >> >> On another note, Does hotpluggable-and-absent case make any valid use case >> for >> a DT boot? I am not sure how we can hot-add memory in the case of DT boot >> later. >> I have not verified the sysfs probe interface yet and there are discussions of >> dropping >> that interface altogether. >> >>> But this really has to be clarified from the Linux kernel's expectations. Please >>> formalize all of the following cases: >> >> Sure. I will wait for suggestions here and work on it. > > To continue the discussion on this, this is my proposal, > > [...] I didn't miss your last update, on 10 April. The reason I didn't respond then was that, the table that you create here, needs to be approved by Linux developers. In other words, the table should summarize how Linux expects DT/ACPI to look, for the given use cases. It's not something that I can comment on. The requirements come from Linux, and we should attempt (in QEMU and the fw) to satisfy them. If those use cases / requirements haven't been *designed* in Linux, in the first place, then the discussion belongs even more on a kernel development list. (I really can't say what Linux *should* expect, and even if I had input on that, discussing it *just* on qemu-devel would be futile.) I mean, considering ACPI and the UEFI memmap at least, can we take examples from the physical world (I guess x86 too)? What does Linux (and maybe Windows) expect wrt. hotpluggable memory areas, in ACPI and in the UEFI memmap? I find it hard to believe that these are such use cases that we have to *invent* now. It seems more likely that OSes already handle these use cases, they have expectations, and we should *collect* them. Thanks Laszlo
Hi Laszlo, > -----Original Message----- > From: Laszlo Ersek [mailto:lersek@redhat.com] > Sent: 03 May 2019 15:14 > To: Shameerali Kolothum Thodi <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>; > qemu-devel@nongnu.org; qemu-arm@nongnu.org; eric.auger@redhat.com; > imammedo@redhat.com > Cc: peter.maydell@linaro.org; sameo@linux.intel.com; > ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org; Linuxarm <linuxarm@huawei.com>; > shannon.zhaosl@gmail.com; sebastien.boeuf@intel.com; xuwei (O) > <xuwei5@huawei.com> > Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 8/8] hw/arm/boot: Expose the PC-DIMM > nodes in the DT > > Hi Shameer, > > On 05/03/19 15:35, Shameerali Kolothum Thodi wrote: > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Linuxarm [mailto:linuxarm-bounces@huawei.com] On Behalf Of > >> Shameerali Kolothum Thodi > >> Sent: 10 April 2019 09:49 > >> To: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>; qemu-devel@nongnu.org; > >> qemu-arm@nongnu.org; eric.auger@redhat.com; imammedo@redhat.com > >> Cc: peter.maydell@linaro.org; sameo@linux.intel.com; > >> ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org; Linuxarm <linuxarm@huawei.com>; > >> shannon.zhaosl@gmail.com; sebastien.boeuf@intel.com; xuwei (O) > >> <xuwei5@huawei.com> > >> Subject: RE: [PATCH v4 8/8] hw/arm/boot: Expose the PC-DIMM nodes in > >> the DT > >> > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Laszlo Ersek [mailto:lersek@redhat.com] > >>> Sent: 09 April 2019 16:09 > >>> To: Shameerali Kolothum Thodi > >>> <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>; > >>> qemu-devel@nongnu.org; qemu-arm@nongnu.org; > eric.auger@redhat.com; > >>> imammedo@redhat.com > >>> Cc: peter.maydell@linaro.org; shannon.zhaosl@gmail.com; > >>> sameo@linux.intel.com; sebastien.boeuf@intel.com; xuwei (O) > >>> <xuwei5@huawei.com>; ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org; Linuxarm > >>> <linuxarm@huawei.com> > >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 8/8] hw/arm/boot: Expose the PC-DIMM nodes in > >>> the DT > >>> > >>> On 04/09/19 12:29, Shameer Kolothum wrote: > >>>> This patch adds memory nodes corresponding to PC-DIMM regions. > >>>> This will enable support for cold plugged device memory for Guests > >>>> with DT boot. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Shameer Kolothum > >> <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com> > >>>> --- > >>>> hw/arm/boot.c | 42 > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >>>> 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+) > >>>> > >>>> diff --git a/hw/arm/boot.c b/hw/arm/boot.c index 8c840ba..150e1ed > >>>> 100644 > >>>> --- a/hw/arm/boot.c > >>>> +++ b/hw/arm/boot.c > >>>> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ > >>>> #include "sysemu/numa.h" > >>>> #include "hw/boards.h" > >>>> #include "hw/loader.h" > >>>> +#include "hw/mem/memory-device.h" > >>>> #include "elf.h" > >>>> #include "sysemu/device_tree.h" > >>>> #include "qemu/config-file.h" > >>>> @@ -538,6 +539,41 @@ static void fdt_add_psci_node(void *fdt) > >>>> qemu_fdt_setprop_cell(fdt, "/psci", "migrate", migrate_fn); } > >>>> > >>>> +static int fdt_add_hotpluggable_memory_nodes(void *fdt, > >>>> + uint32_t acells, > >>> uint32_t scells) { > >>>> + MemoryDeviceInfoList *info, *info_list = > qmp_memory_device_list(); > >>>> + MemoryDeviceInfo *mi; > >>>> + int ret = 0; > >>>> + > >>>> + for (info = info_list; info != NULL; info = info->next) { > >>>> + mi = info->value; > >>>> + switch (mi->type) { > >>>> + case MEMORY_DEVICE_INFO_KIND_DIMM: > >>>> + { > >>>> + PCDIMMDeviceInfo *di = mi->u.dimm.data; > >>>> + > >>>> + ret = fdt_add_memory_node(fdt, acells, di->addr, scells, > >>>> + di->size, di->node, true); > >>>> + if (ret) { > >>>> + fprintf(stderr, > >>>> + "couldn't add PCDIMM > >> /memory@%"PRIx64" > >>> node\n", > >>>> + di->addr); > >>>> + goto out; > >>>> + } > >>>> + break; > >>>> + } > >>>> + default: > >>>> + fprintf(stderr, "%s memory nodes are not yet > supported\n", > >>>> + MemoryDeviceInfoKind_str(mi->type)); > >>>> + ret = -ENOENT; > >>>> + goto out; > >>>> + } > >>>> + } > >>>> +out: > >>>> + qapi_free_MemoryDeviceInfoList(info_list); > >>>> + return ret; > >>>> +} > >>>> + > >>>> int arm_load_dtb(hwaddr addr, const struct arm_boot_info *binfo, > >>>> hwaddr addr_limit, AddressSpace *as) { @@ > -637,6 > >>>> +673,12 @@ int arm_load_dtb(hwaddr addr, const struct > >>> arm_boot_info *binfo, > >>>> } > >>>> } > >>>> > >>>> + rc = fdt_add_hotpluggable_memory_nodes(fdt, acells, scells); > >>>> + if (rc < 0) { > >>>> + fprintf(stderr, "couldn't add hotpluggable memory nodes\n"); > >>>> + goto fail; > >>>> + } > >>>> + > >>>> rc = fdt_path_offset(fdt, "/chosen"); > >>>> if (rc < 0) { > >>>> qemu_fdt_add_subnode(fdt, "/chosen"); > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Given patches #7 and #8, as I understand them, the firmware cannot > >>> distinguish hotpluggable & present, from hotpluggable & absent. The > >> firmware > >>> can only skip both hotpluggable cases. That's fine in that the > >>> firmware will > >> hog > >>> neither type -- but is that OK for the OS as well, for both ACPI > >>> boot and DT boot? > >> > >> Right. This only handles the hotpluggable-and-present condition. > >> > >>> Consider in particular the "hotpluggable & present, ACPI boot" case. > >> Assuming > >>> we modify the firmware to skip "hotpluggable" altogether, the UEFI > >>> memmap will not include the range despite it being present at boot. > >>> Presumably, ACPI will refer to the range somehow, however. Will that not > confuse the OS? > >> > >> From my testing so far, without patches #7 and #8(ie, no UEFI memmap > >> entry), ACPI boots fine. I think ACPI only relies on aml and SRAT. > >> > >>> When Igor raised this earlier, I suggested that > >>> hotpluggable-and-present should be added by the firmware, but also > >>> allocated immediately, as EfiBootServicesData type memory. This will > >>> prevent other drivers in the firmware from allocating AcpiNVS or > >>> Reserved chunks from the same memory range, the UEFI memmap will > >>> contain the range as EfiBootServicesData, and then the OS can release > that allocation in one go early during boot. > >> > >> Ok. Agree that hotpluggable-and-present case it may make sense to > >> make use of that memory rather than just hiding it altogether. > >> > >> On another note, Does hotpluggable-and-absent case make any valid use > >> case for a DT boot? I am not sure how we can hot-add memory in the > >> case of DT boot later. > >> I have not verified the sysfs probe interface yet and there are > >> discussions of dropping that interface altogether. > >> > >>> But this really has to be clarified from the Linux kernel's > >>> expectations. Please formalize all of the following cases: > >> > >> Sure. I will wait for suggestions here and work on it. > > > > To continue the discussion on this, this is my proposal, > > > > [...] > > I didn't miss your last update, on 10 April. The reason I didn't respond then was > that, the table that you create here, needs to be approved by Linux developers. > In other words, the table should summarize how Linux expects DT/ACPI to look, > for the given use cases. It's not something that I can comment on. The > requirements come from Linux, and we should attempt (in QEMU and the fw) > to satisfy them. > > If those use cases / requirements haven't been *designed* in Linux, in the first > place, then the discussion belongs even more on a kernel development list. (I > really can't say what Linux *should* expect, and even if I had input on that, > discussing it *just* on qemu-devel would be > futile.) > > I mean, considering ACPI and the UEFI memmap at least, can we take > examples from the physical world (I guess x86 too)? What does Linux (and > maybe Windows) expect wrt. hotpluggable memory areas, in ACPI and in the > UEFI memmap? > > I find it hard to believe that these are such use cases that we have to > *invent* now. It seems more likely that OSes already handle these use cases, > they have expectations, and we should *collect* them. Right. I have just sent out a mail seeking clarification on this to the wider Linux community (CCd all of you as well) here, http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2019-May/651360.html Hope, we can come to a conclusion soon. Thanks, Shameer
diff --git a/hw/arm/boot.c b/hw/arm/boot.c index 8c840ba..150e1ed 100644 --- a/hw/arm/boot.c +++ b/hw/arm/boot.c @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ #include "sysemu/numa.h" #include "hw/boards.h" #include "hw/loader.h" +#include "hw/mem/memory-device.h" #include "elf.h" #include "sysemu/device_tree.h" #include "qemu/config-file.h" @@ -538,6 +539,41 @@ static void fdt_add_psci_node(void *fdt) qemu_fdt_setprop_cell(fdt, "/psci", "migrate", migrate_fn); } +static int fdt_add_hotpluggable_memory_nodes(void *fdt, + uint32_t acells, uint32_t scells) { + MemoryDeviceInfoList *info, *info_list = qmp_memory_device_list(); + MemoryDeviceInfo *mi; + int ret = 0; + + for (info = info_list; info != NULL; info = info->next) { + mi = info->value; + switch (mi->type) { + case MEMORY_DEVICE_INFO_KIND_DIMM: + { + PCDIMMDeviceInfo *di = mi->u.dimm.data; + + ret = fdt_add_memory_node(fdt, acells, di->addr, scells, + di->size, di->node, true); + if (ret) { + fprintf(stderr, + "couldn't add PCDIMM /memory@%"PRIx64" node\n", + di->addr); + goto out; + } + break; + } + default: + fprintf(stderr, "%s memory nodes are not yet supported\n", + MemoryDeviceInfoKind_str(mi->type)); + ret = -ENOENT; + goto out; + } + } +out: + qapi_free_MemoryDeviceInfoList(info_list); + return ret; +} + int arm_load_dtb(hwaddr addr, const struct arm_boot_info *binfo, hwaddr addr_limit, AddressSpace *as) { @@ -637,6 +673,12 @@ int arm_load_dtb(hwaddr addr, const struct arm_boot_info *binfo, } } + rc = fdt_add_hotpluggable_memory_nodes(fdt, acells, scells); + if (rc < 0) { + fprintf(stderr, "couldn't add hotpluggable memory nodes\n"); + goto fail; + } + rc = fdt_path_offset(fdt, "/chosen"); if (rc < 0) { qemu_fdt_add_subnode(fdt, "/chosen");