qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [kvmtool test PATCH 24/24] kvmtool: arm: Add support fo


From: Marc Zyngier
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [kvmtool test PATCH 24/24] kvmtool: arm: Add support for creating VM with PA size
Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2018 15:41:18 +0100
User-agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI-EPG/1.14.7 (Harue) FLIM/1.14.9 (Goj┼Ź) APEL/10.8 EasyPG/1.0.0 Emacs/25.1 (aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)

On Wed, 04 Jul 2018 15:22:42 +0100,
Will Deacon <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 12:15:44PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> > diff --git a/arm/kvm.c b/arm/kvm.c
> > index 5701d41..b1969be 100644
> > --- a/arm/kvm.c
> > +++ b/arm/kvm.c
> > @@ -11,6 +11,8 @@
> >  #include <linux/kvm.h>
> >  #include <linux/sizes.h>
> >  
> > +unsigned long kvm_arm_type;
> > +
> >  struct kvm_ext kvm_req_ext[] = {
> >     { DEFINE_KVM_EXT(KVM_CAP_IRQCHIP) },
> >     { DEFINE_KVM_EXT(KVM_CAP_ONE_REG) },
> > @@ -18,6 +20,26 @@ struct kvm_ext kvm_req_ext[] = {
> >     { 0, 0 },
> >  };
> >  
> > +#ifndef KVM_ARM_GET_MAX_VM_PHYS_SHIFT
> > +#define KVM_ARM_GET_MAX_VM_PHYS_SHIFT              _IO(KVMIO, 0x0b)
> > +#endif
> > +
> > +void kvm__arch_init_hyp(struct kvm *kvm)
> > +{
> > +   int max_ipa;
> > +
> > +   max_ipa = ioctl(kvm->sys_fd, KVM_ARM_GET_MAX_VM_PHYS_SHIFT);
> > +   if (max_ipa < 0)
> > +           max_ipa = 40;
> > +   if (!kvm->cfg.arch.phys_shift)
> > +           kvm->cfg.arch.phys_shift = 40;
> > +   if (kvm->cfg.arch.phys_shift > max_ipa)
> > +           die("Requested PA size (%u) is not supported by the host 
> > (%ubits)\n",
> > +               kvm->cfg.arch.phys_shift, max_ipa);
> > +   if (kvm->cfg.arch.phys_shift != 40)
> > +           kvm_arm_type = kvm->cfg.arch.phys_shift;
> > +}
> 
> Seems a bit weird that the "machine type identifier" to KVM_CREATE_VM is
> dedicated entirely to holding the physical address shift verbatim. Is this
> really the ABI?
> 
> Also, couldn't KVM figure it out automatically if you add memslots at high
> addresses, making this a niche tunable outside of testing?

Not really. Let's say I want my IPA space split in two: memory covers
the low 47 bit, and I want MMIO spanning the top 47 bit. With your
scheme, you'd end-up with a 47bit IPA space, while you really want 48
bits (MMIO space implemented by userspace isn't registered to the
kernel).

        M.

-- 
Jazz is not dead, it just smell funny.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]