On Mon, 18 Sept, 2023, 3:39 pm David Hildenbrand, <da...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 18.09.23 12:07, Ani Sinha wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 18 Sept, 2023, 3:03 pm David Hildenbrand, <da...@redhat.com > > <mailto:da...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > > > >> > > >>>> /* > > >>>> * The 64bit pci hole starts after "above 4G RAM" and > > >>>> * potentially the space reserved for memory hotplug. > > >>>> */ > > >>>> > > >>>> There is the > > >>>> ROUND_UP(hole64_start, 1 * GiB); > > >>>> in there that is not really required for the !hole64 case. It > > >>>> shouldn't matter much in practice I think (besides an aligned > > value > > >>>> showing up in the error message). > > >>>> > > >>>> We could factor out most of that calculation into a > > >>>> separate function, skipping that alignment to make that > > >>>> clearer. > > >>> Yeah this whole memory segmentation is quite complicated and > > might benefit from a qemu doc or a refactoring. > > >> > > >> Absolutely. Do you have time to work on that (including the > > updated fix?). > > > > > > Other than the fix you proposed I am not sure if we need to fix > > anything else atm. Seems physical address space bound checks are > > already in place. > > > Re: doc, maybe. I will add it to my TODO list. > > > > Will you send a proper patch, ideally not using pc_pci_hole64_start() > > but instead the same logic without the final alignment to 1 GiB? > > > > > > I'll send. No problem. Could you answer my other question please ? > > Sorry, which one did I miss Ok hopefully my last question. I am still confused on something. Does the > above mean that the hole64 will actually start from an address that is > beyond maxram? Like basically if you added all of ram_below_4G, > ram_above_4G, hot plug_mem and pci_hole64 then can it exceed maxram? I > think it will. Does this not an issue? > -- > Cheers, > > David / dhildenb > >
