[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH RFCv2 2/4] i386/pc: relocate 4g start to 1T where applicable
From: |
Igor Mammedov |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH RFCv2 2/4] i386/pc: relocate 4g start to 1T where applicable |
Date: |
Mon, 14 Feb 2022 15:53:18 +0100 |
On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 20:24:20 +0000
Joao Martins <joao.m.martins@oracle.com> wrote:
> It is assumed that the whole GPA space is available to be DMA
> addressable, within a given address space limit, expect for a
> tiny region before the 4G. Since Linux v5.4, VFIO validates
> whether the selected GPA is indeed valid i.e. not reserved by
> IOMMU on behalf of some specific devices or platform-defined
> restrictions, and thus failing the ioctl(VFIO_DMA_MAP) with
> -EINVAL.
>
> AMD systems with an IOMMU are examples of such platforms and
> particularly may only have these ranges as allowed:
>
> 0000000000000000 - 00000000fedfffff (0 .. 3.982G)
> 00000000fef00000 - 000000fcffffffff (3.983G .. 1011.9G)
> 0000010000000000 - ffffffffffffffff (1Tb .. 16Pb[*])
>
> We already account for the 4G hole, albeit if the guest is big
> enough we will fail to allocate a guest with >1010G due to the
> ~12G hole at the 1Tb boundary, reserved for HyperTransport (HT).
>
> [*] there is another reserved region unrelated to HT that exists
> in the 256T boundaru in Fam 17h according to Errata #1286,
> documeted also in "Open-Source Register Reference for AMD Family
> 17h Processors (PUB)"
>
> When creating the region above 4G, take into account that on AMD
> platforms the HyperTransport range is reserved and hence it
> cannot be used either as GPAs. On those cases rather than
> establishing the start of ram-above-4g to be 4G, relocate instead
> to 1Tb. See AMD IOMMU spec, section 2.1.2 "IOMMU Logical
> Topology", for more information on the underlying restriction of
> IOVAs.
>
> After accounting for the 1Tb hole on AMD hosts, mtree should
> look like:
>
> 0000000000000000-000000007fffffff (prio 0, i/o):
> alias ram-below-4g @pc.ram 0000000000000000-000000007fffffff
> 0000010000000000-000001ff7fffffff (prio 0, i/o):
> alias ram-above-4g @pc.ram 0000000080000000-000000ffffffffff
>
> If the relocation is done, we also add the the reserved HT
> e820 range as reserved.
>
> Suggested-by: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Joao Martins <joao.m.martins@oracle.com>
> ---
> hw/i386/pc.c | 66 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> target/i386/cpu.h | 4 +++
> 2 files changed, 70 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/hw/i386/pc.c b/hw/i386/pc.c
> index 7de0e87f4a3f..b060aedd38f3 100644
> --- a/hw/i386/pc.c
> +++ b/hw/i386/pc.c
> @@ -802,6 +802,65 @@ void xen_load_linux(PCMachineState *pcms)
> #define PC_ROM_ALIGN 0x800
> #define PC_ROM_SIZE (PC_ROM_MAX - PC_ROM_MIN_VGA)
>
> +/*
> + * AMD systems with an IOMMU have an additional hole close to the
> + * 1Tb, which are special GPAs that cannot be DMA mapped. Depending
> + * on kernel version, VFIO may or may not let you DMA map those ranges.
> + * Starting Linux v5.4 we validate it, and can't create guests on AMD
> machines
> + * with certain memory sizes. It's also wrong to use those IOVA ranges
> + * in detriment of leading to IOMMU INVALID_DEVICE_REQUEST or worse.
> + * The ranges reserved for Hyper-Transport are:
> + *
> + * FD_0000_0000h - FF_FFFF_FFFFh
> + *
> + * The ranges represent the following:
> + *
> + * Base Address Top Address Use
> + *
> + * FD_0000_0000h FD_F7FF_FFFFh Reserved interrupt address space
> + * FD_F800_0000h FD_F8FF_FFFFh Interrupt/EOI IntCtl
> + * FD_F900_0000h FD_F90F_FFFFh Legacy PIC IACK
> + * FD_F910_0000h FD_F91F_FFFFh System Management
> + * FD_F920_0000h FD_FAFF_FFFFh Reserved Page Tables
> + * FD_FB00_0000h FD_FBFF_FFFFh Address Translation
> + * FD_FC00_0000h FD_FDFF_FFFFh I/O Space
> + * FD_FE00_0000h FD_FFFF_FFFFh Configuration
> + * FE_0000_0000h FE_1FFF_FFFFh Extended Configuration/Device Messages
> + * FE_2000_0000h FF_FFFF_FFFFh Reserved
> + *
> + * See AMD IOMMU spec, section 2.1.2 "IOMMU Logical Topology",
> + * Table 3: Special Address Controls (GPA) for more information.
> + */
> +#define AMD_HT_START 0xfd00000000UL
> +#define AMD_HT_END 0xffffffffffUL
> +#define AMD_ABOVE_1TB_START (AMD_HT_END + 1)
> +#define AMD_HT_SIZE (AMD_ABOVE_1TB_START - AMD_HT_START)
> +
> +static void relocate_4g(MachineState *machine, PCMachineState *pcms)
perhaps rename it to x86_update_above_4g_mem_start() ?
> +{
> + PCMachineClass *pcmc = PC_MACHINE_GET_CLASS(pcms);
> + X86MachineState *x86ms = X86_MACHINE(pcms);
> + ram_addr_t device_mem_size = 0;
> + uint32_t eax, vendor[3];
> +
> + host_cpuid(0x0, 0, &eax, &vendor[0], &vendor[2], &vendor[1]);
> + if (!IS_AMD_VENDOR(vendor)) {
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + if (pcmc->has_reserved_memory &&
> + (machine->ram_size < machine->maxram_size)) {
> + device_mem_size = machine->maxram_size - machine->ram_size;
> + }
> +
> + if ((x86ms->above_4g_mem_start + x86ms->above_4g_mem_size +
> + device_mem_size) < AMD_HT_START) {
should it account for sgx as well?
what if above sum ends up right before AMD_HT_START,
and exit without adjusting above_4g_mem_start, but
pci64 hole eventually will fall into HT range?
Is it expected behaviour?
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + x86ms->above_4g_mem_start = AMD_ABOVE_1TB_START;
> +}
> +
> void pc_memory_init(PCMachineState *pcms,
> MemoryRegion *system_memory,
> MemoryRegion *rom_memory,
> @@ -821,6 +880,8 @@ void pc_memory_init(PCMachineState *pcms,
>
> linux_boot = (machine->kernel_filename != NULL);
>
> + relocate_4g(machine, pcms);
> +
> /*
> * Split single memory region and use aliases to address portions of it,
> * done for backwards compatibility with older qemus.
> @@ -831,6 +892,11 @@ void pc_memory_init(PCMachineState *pcms,
> 0, x86ms->below_4g_mem_size);
> memory_region_add_subregion(system_memory, 0, ram_below_4g);
> e820_add_entry(0, x86ms->below_4g_mem_size, E820_RAM);
> +
> + if (x86ms->above_4g_mem_start == AMD_ABOVE_1TB_START) {
> + e820_add_entry(AMD_HT_START, AMD_HT_SIZE, E820_RESERVED);
> + }
btw: do we have to add reservation record for HT zone, why?
> if (x86ms->above_4g_mem_size > 0) {
> ram_above_4g = g_malloc(sizeof(*ram_above_4g));
> memory_region_init_alias(ram_above_4g, NULL, "ram-above-4g",
> diff --git a/target/i386/cpu.h b/target/i386/cpu.h
> index 9911d7c8711b..1acebc569b02 100644
> --- a/target/i386/cpu.h
> +++ b/target/i386/cpu.h
> @@ -906,6 +906,10 @@ typedef uint64_t FeatureWordArray[FEATURE_WORDS];
> #define IS_AMD_CPU(env) ((env)->cpuid_vendor1 == CPUID_VENDOR_AMD_1 && \
> (env)->cpuid_vendor2 == CPUID_VENDOR_AMD_2 && \
> (env)->cpuid_vendor3 == CPUID_VENDOR_AMD_3)
> +#define IS_AMD_VENDOR(vendor) ((vendor[0]) == CPUID_VENDOR_AMD_1 && \
> + (vendor[1]) == CPUID_VENDOR_AMD_2 && \
> + (vendor[2]) == CPUID_VENDOR_AMD_3)
> +
>
> #define CPUID_MWAIT_IBE (1U << 1) /* Interrupts can exit capability */
> #define CPUID_MWAIT_EMX (1U << 0) /* enumeration supported */
- [PATCH RFCv2 0/4] i386/pc: Fix creation of >= 1010G guests on AMD systems with IOMMU, Joao Martins, 2022/02/07
- [PATCH RFCv2 1/4] hw/i386: add 4g boundary start to X86MachineState, Joao Martins, 2022/02/07
- [PATCH RFCv2 2/4] i386/pc: relocate 4g start to 1T where applicable, Joao Martins, 2022/02/07
- Re: [PATCH RFCv2 2/4] i386/pc: relocate 4g start to 1T where applicable,
Igor Mammedov <=
- Re: [PATCH RFCv2 2/4] i386/pc: relocate 4g start to 1T where applicable, Joao Martins, 2022/02/14
- Re: [PATCH RFCv2 2/4] i386/pc: relocate 4g start to 1T where applicable, Igor Mammedov, 2022/02/14
- Re: [PATCH RFCv2 2/4] i386/pc: relocate 4g start to 1T where applicable, Gerd Hoffmann, 2022/02/15
- Re: [PATCH RFCv2 2/4] i386/pc: relocate 4g start to 1T where applicable, Joao Martins, 2022/02/15
- Re: [PATCH RFCv2 2/4] i386/pc: relocate 4g start to 1T where applicable, Gerd Hoffmann, 2022/02/16
- Re: [PATCH RFCv2 2/4] i386/pc: relocate 4g start to 1T where applicable, Joao Martins, 2022/02/16
- Re: [PATCH RFCv2 2/4] i386/pc: relocate 4g start to 1T where applicable, Gerd Hoffmann, 2022/02/16
- Re: [PATCH RFCv2 2/4] i386/pc: relocate 4g start to 1T where applicable, Daniel P . Berrangé, 2022/02/16
- Re: [PATCH RFCv2 2/4] i386/pc: relocate 4g start to 1T where applicable, Dr. David Alan Gilbert, 2022/02/21
- Re: [PATCH RFCv2 2/4] i386/pc: relocate 4g start to 1T where applicable, Igor Mammedov, 2022/02/22