Hi,
On 9/26/19 12:18 PM, hong...@amazon.com wrote:
On 26/09/2019 11:39, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi,
NIT Title: Please remove full stop.
On 9/26/19 10:46 AM, hong...@amazon.com wrote:
From: Hongyan Xia <hong...@amazon.com>
Please provide a description of what/why you are doing this in the
commit message.
Also, IIRC, x86 always have !CONFIG_SEPARATE_XENHEAP. So can you
explain why the path with separate xenheap is also modified?
Signed-off-by: Hongyan Xia <hong...@amazon.com>
---
xen/common/page_alloc.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/xen/common/page_alloc.c b/xen/common/page_alloc.c
index 7cb1bd368b..4ec6299ba8 100644
--- a/xen/common/page_alloc.c
+++ b/xen/common/page_alloc.c
@@ -2143,6 +2143,7 @@ void init_xenheap_pages(paddr_t ps, paddr_t pe)
void *alloc_xenheap_pages(unsigned int order, unsigned int memflags)
{
struct page_info *pg;
+ void *ret;
ASSERT(!in_irq());
@@ -2151,7 +2152,10 @@ void *alloc_xenheap_pages(unsigned int order,
unsigned int memflags)
if ( unlikely(pg == NULL) )
return NULL;
- memguard_unguard_range(page_to_virt(pg), 1 << (order +
PAGE_SHIFT));
+ ret = page_to_virt(pg);
+ memguard_unguard_range(ret, 1 << (order + PAGE_SHIFT));
+ map_pages_to_xen((unsigned long)ret, page_to_mfn(pg),
+ 1UL << order, PAGE_HYPERVISOR);
As mentioned earlier on for Arm, xenheap will always be mapped. So
unless you have plan to tackle the Arm side as well, we should make
sure that the behavior is not changed for Arm.
I can add an #ifdef for x86. Although I think if the Arm code is
correct, this should still not break things. It breaks if a xenheap
access is made even before allocation or after free, which I think is a
bug.
Correctness is a matter of perspective ;). xenheap is already map on Arm
and therefore trying to map it again is considered as an error. I think
this is a valid behavior because if you try to map twice then it likely
means you may have to unmap later on.
Furthermore, xenheap is using superpage (2MB, 1GB) mapping at the
moment. We completely forbid shattering superpage because they are not
trivial to deal with.
In short, if you wanted to unmap part it, then you would need to shatter
the page. Shattering superpage required to follow a specific sequence
(called break-before-make) that will go through an invalid mapping. We
need to be careful as another processor may access the superpage at the
same time.
It may be possible to use only 4KB mapping for the xenheap, but that's
need to be investigated first.
Lastly, not directly related to the discussion here, I think it would be
a good time to start checking the return of map_pages_to_xen(). If the
call unlikely fails, we would end up to continue and get an error later
on that may be more difficult to debug. Instead, I would fail the
allocation if the mapping is not done.
It feels to me we want to introduce a new Kconfig that is selected by
x86 to tell whether the direct map is mapped. I would then implement
maybe in xen/mm.h two stub (one for when the config is selected, the
other when it is not).
I have the same question. Do we want to move forward with no direct map
in x86 or do we want to have a compile-time config? If the performance
is decent, I would prefer the former since this could be a big
compile-time switch which leaves two branches of code to be maintained
in the future.
Unless you have plan to implement the Arm bits, we will need two
branches to maintain.
But what I suggested is x86 to always select the option that will
require map/unmap the direct map. Arm would keep it disable.
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel