On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 08:53:02AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
[...]
> > Okay, I think have two questions for you:
> >
> > - The first question is if we really need to reserve persistent memory
> > for RD pending table and configuration table when Linux kernel runs
> > in Xen domain?
>
> I
On Tue, 06 Sep 2022 08:27:47 +0100,
Leo Yan wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 09:22:00AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > IIUC, you consider the general flow from architecture view, so you prefer
> > > to ask Xen to implement EFI stub to comply the general flow for EFI
> > >
On Tue, 06 Sep 2022 16:13:25 +0100,
Leo Yan wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 08:53:02AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > Okay, I think have two questions for you:
> > >
> > > - The first question is if we really need to reserve persistent memory
> > > for RD pending table and
On Tue, 06 Sep 2022 08:17:14 +0100,
Leo Yan wrote:
>
> Hi Marc,
>
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 07:27:17AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On Tue, 06 Sep 2022 03:52:37 +0100,
> > Leo Yan wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 10:40:41PM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > >
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 03:27:47PM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 09:22:00AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > IIUC, you consider the general flow from architecture view, so you prefer
> > > to ask Xen to implement EFI stub to comply the general flow for EFI
> > >
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 09:22:00AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
[...]
> > IIUC, you consider the general flow from architecture view, so you prefer
> > to ask Xen to implement EFI stub to comply the general flow for EFI
> > booting sequence, right?
> >
> > If the conclusion is to change Xen for
On Tue, 6 Sept 2022 at 09:17, Leo Yan wrote:
>
> Hi Marc,
>
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 07:27:17AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On Tue, 06 Sep 2022 03:52:37 +0100,
> > Leo Yan wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 10:40:41PM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > > > But here
Hi Marc,
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 07:27:17AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Sep 2022 03:52:37 +0100,
> Leo Yan wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 10:40:41PM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > > > But here I still cannot create the concept that how GIC RD tables play
> >
On Tue, 06 Sep 2022 03:52:37 +0100,
Leo Yan wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 10:40:41PM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > > But here I still cannot create the concept that how GIC RD tables play
> > > > roles to support the para virtualization or passthrough mode.
> > >
> > > I am not
On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 10:40:41PM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
[...]
> > > But here I still cannot create the concept that how GIC RD tables play
> > > roles to support the para virtualization or passthrough mode.
> >
> > I am not sure what you are actually asking. The pending tables are just
> >
Hi Julien,
On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 01:59:06PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
[...]
> > Seems to me, to support para virtualization driver model (like virtio),
> > Dom0 needs to provide the device driver backend, and DomUs enables
> > the forend device drivers. In this case, the most hardware
Hi Leo,
On 25/08/2022 12:50, Leo Yan wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 10:07:18AM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
[...]
Xen directly passes ACPI MADT table from UEFI to Linux kernel to Dom0,
(see functions acpi_create_madt() and gic_make_hwdom_madt()), which
means the Linux kernel Dom0 uses the same
Hi Leo,
On 25/08/2022 12:24, Leo Yan wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 10:07:18AM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
[...]
In other words, let's assume the Dom0 kernel panic and its secondary
kernel is launched by kexec, is it necessarily for the secondary
kernel to reuse the primary kernel's RD
On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 10:07:18AM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
[...]
> > Xen directly passes ACPI MADT table from UEFI to Linux kernel to Dom0,
> > (see functions acpi_create_madt() and gic_make_hwdom_madt()), which
> > means the Linux kernel Dom0 uses the same ACPI table to initialize GICv3
> >
Hi Julien,
On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 10:07:18AM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
[...]
> > In other words, let's assume the Dom0 kernel panic and its secondary
> > kernel is launched by kexec, is it necessarily for the secondary
> > kernel to reuse the primary kernel's RD pending page?
>
> No.
If the
Hi,
On 25/08/2022 08:59, Leo Yan wrote:
On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 01:10:10PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
[...]
In the context of Xen, dom0 doesn't have direct access to the host ITS
because we are emulating it. So I think it doesn't matter for us because we
can fix our implementation if it is
On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 01:10:10PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
[...]
> > > > In the context of Xen, dom0 doesn't have direct access to the host ITS
> > > > because we are emulating it. So I think it doesn't matter for us
> > > > because we
> > > > can fix our implementation if it is affected.
>
On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 17:24:31 +0100,
Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 at 17:49, Leo Yan wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 11:04:48AM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > > > Seems it's broken for kdump/kexec if kernel boots with using DT?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 at 17:49, Leo Yan wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 11:04:48AM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > > Seems it's broken for kdump/kexec if kernel boots with using DT?
> > > >
> > >
> > > EFI supports both DT and ACPI boot, but only ACPI *requires* EFI.
> > >
> > > So
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 11:04:48AM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
[...]
> > > Seems it's broken for kdump/kexec if kernel boots with using DT?
> > >
> >
> > EFI supports both DT and ACPI boot, but only ACPI *requires* EFI.
> >
> > So DT boot on hardware with affected GICv3 implementations works
Hi Julien,
> On 18 Aug 2022, at 08:57, Julien Grall wrote:
>
> Hi Leo,
>
> On 18/08/2022 08:34, Leo Yan wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 03:17:53PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> Furthermore - what if Linux decided to change their structure? Or
>>> is there a guarantee that they won't?
Hi Ard,
On 18/08/2022 10:33, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 at 11:15, Leo Yan wrote:
Hi Ard,
On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 03:49:32PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
[...]
This header holds ACPI spec defined data structures. This one looks
to be a Linux one, and hence shouldn't be
On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 10:15:30 +0100,
Leo Yan wrote:
>
> Hi Ard,
>
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 03:49:32PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > This header holds ACPI spec defined data structures. This one looks
> > > to be a Linux one, and hence shouldn't be defined here. You use it
> >
On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 at 11:15, Leo Yan wrote:
>
> Hi Ard,
>
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 03:49:32PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > This header holds ACPI spec defined data structures. This one looks
> > > to be a Linux one, and hence shouldn't be defined here. You use it
> > > in a
Hi Ard,
On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 03:49:32PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
[...]
> > This header holds ACPI spec defined data structures. This one looks
> > to be a Linux one, and hence shouldn't be defined here. You use it
> > in a single CU only, so I see no reason to define it there.
> >
> >
On 18.08.2022 10:46, Leo Yan wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 09:47:46AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 18.08.2022 09:34, Leo Yan wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 03:17:53PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
Furthermore - what if Linux decided to change their structure? Or
is there a
Hi Jan,
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 09:47:46AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 18.08.2022 09:34, Leo Yan wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 03:17:53PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> Furthermore - what if Linux decided to change their structure? Or
> >> is there a guarantee that they won't? Generally
Hi Julien,
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 08:57:20AM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Leo,
>
> On 18/08/2022 08:34, Leo Yan wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 03:17:53PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > Furthermore - what if Linux decided to change their structure? Or
> > > is there a guarantee that they
Hi Leo,
On 18/08/2022 08:34, Leo Yan wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 03:17:53PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
Furthermore - what if Linux decided to change their structure? Or
is there a guarantee that they won't? Generally such structures
belong in the public interface, guaranteeing forward
On 18.08.2022 09:34, Leo Yan wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 03:17:53PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Furthermore - what if Linux decided to change their structure? Or
>> is there a guarantee that they won't? Generally such structures
>> belong in the public interface, guaranteeing forward
On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 03:17:53PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
[...]
> Please make sure you Cc all maintainers of all files that you touch.
> Albeit, see below, you could indeed have avoided Cc-ing me if you
> hadn't misplaced stuff in two of the headers that you fiddle with.
Sorry for this.
On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 at 15:18, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> On 17.08.2022 12:57, Leo Yan wrote:
> > On Arm64, when boot Dom0 with the Linux kernel, it reports the warning:
> >
> > [0.403737] [ cut here ]
> > [0.403738] WARNING: CPU: 30 PID: 0 at
> >
On 17.08.2022 12:57, Leo Yan wrote:
> On Arm64, when boot Dom0 with the Linux kernel, it reports the warning:
>
> [0.403737] [ cut here ]
> [0.403738] WARNING: CPU: 30 PID: 0 at
> drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c:3074 its_cpu_init+0x814/0xae0
> [0.403745]
33 matches
Mail list logo
