On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 14:50:56 +0000
Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 02:35:24PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On 2022-02-22 14:28, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 02:18:40PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > > On 2022-02-22 13:58, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 10:08:30AM +0000, Sebastian Ene wrote:
> > > > > > This patch adds support for stolen time by sharing a memory region
> > > > > > with the guest which will be used by the hypervisor to store the
> > > > > > stolen
> > > > > > time information. The exact format of the structure stored by the
> > > > > > hypervisor is described in the ARM DEN0057A document.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Ene <sebastianene@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > Changelog since v2:
> > > > > > - Moved the AARCH64_PVTIME_* definitions from arm-common/kvm-arch.h
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > arm64/pvtime.c as pvtime is only available for arm64.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Changelog since v1:
> > > > > > - Removed the pvtime.h header file and moved the definitions to
> > > > > > kvm-cpu-arch.h
> > > > > > Verified if the stolen time capability is supported before
> > > > > > allocating
> > > > > > and mapping the memory.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Makefile | 1 +
> > > > > > arm/aarch64/arm-cpu.c | 1 +
> > > > > > arm/aarch64/include/kvm/kvm-cpu-arch.h | 1 +
> > > > > > arm/aarch64/pvtime.c | 89
> > > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > > arm/kvm-cpu.c | 14 ++--
> > > > > > 5 files changed, 99 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > > > > > create mode 100644 arm/aarch64/pvtime.c
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
> > > > > > index f251147..e9121dc 100644
> > > > > > --- a/Makefile
> > > > > > +++ b/Makefile
> > > > > > @@ -182,6 +182,7 @@ ifeq ($(ARCH), arm64)
> > > > > > OBJS += arm/aarch64/arm-cpu.o
> > > > > > OBJS += arm/aarch64/kvm-cpu.o
> > > > > > OBJS += arm/aarch64/kvm.o
> > > > > > + OBJS += arm/aarch64/pvtime.o
> > > > > > ARCH_INCLUDE := $(HDRS_ARM_COMMON)
> > > > > > ARCH_INCLUDE += -Iarm/aarch64/include
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/arm/aarch64/arm-cpu.c b/arm/aarch64/arm-cpu.c
> > > > > > index d7572b7..326fb20 100644
> > > > > > --- a/arm/aarch64/arm-cpu.c
> > > > > > +++ b/arm/aarch64/arm-cpu.c
> > > > > > @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ static void generate_fdt_nodes(void *fdt, struct
> > > > > > kvm *kvm)
> > > > > > static int arm_cpu__vcpu_init(struct kvm_cpu *vcpu)
> > > > > > {
> > > > > > vcpu->generate_fdt_nodes = generate_fdt_nodes;
> > > > > > + kvm_cpu__setup_pvtime(vcpu);
> > > > > > return 0;
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/arm/aarch64/include/kvm/kvm-cpu-arch.h
> > > > > > b/arm/aarch64/include/kvm/kvm-cpu-arch.h
> > > > > > index 8dfb82e..b57d6e6 100644
> > > > > > --- a/arm/aarch64/include/kvm/kvm-cpu-arch.h
> > > > > > +++ b/arm/aarch64/include/kvm/kvm-cpu-arch.h
> > > > > > @@ -19,5 +19,6 @@
> > > > > >
> > > > > > void kvm_cpu__select_features(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_vcpu_init
> > > > > > *init);
> > > > > > int kvm_cpu__configure_features(struct kvm_cpu *vcpu);
> > > > > > +void kvm_cpu__setup_pvtime(struct kvm_cpu *vcpu);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > #endif /* KVM__KVM_CPU_ARCH_H */
> > > > > > diff --git a/arm/aarch64/pvtime.c b/arm/aarch64/pvtime.c
> > > > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > > > index 0000000..247e4f3
> > > > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > > > +++ b/arm/aarch64/pvtime.c
> > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
> > > > > > +#include "kvm/kvm.h"
> > > > > > +#include "kvm/kvm-cpu.h"
> > > > > > +#include "kvm/util.h"
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +#include <linux/byteorder.h>
> > > > > > +#include <linux/types.h>
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +#define AARCH64_PVTIME_IPA_MAX_SIZE SZ_64K
> > > > > > +#define AARCH64_PVTIME_IPA_START (ARM_MEMORY_AREA - \
> > > > > > + AARCH64_PVTIME_IPA_MAX_SIZE)
> > > > >
> > > > > This doesn't change the fact that it overlaps with KVM_PCI_MMIO_AREA,
> > > > > which is
> > > > > exposed to the guest in the DTB (see my reply to v2).
> > > >
> > > > Yup, this is a bit of a problem, and overlapping regions are
> > > > a big no-no. Why can't the pvtime region be dynamically placed
> > > > after the RAM (after checking that there is enough space to
> > > > register it in the IPA space)?
> > >
> > > In theory, is there something to stop someone from creating a VM with
> > > enough
> > > memory to reach the end of the IPA space?
> >
> > No, but we can either steal 64kB from that upper limit if that's the
> > case, or let the user know that stolen time is disabled because they
> > have been greedy...
>
> If we decide to go with having the pvtime region after RAM, I would prefer to
> disable it if there's no room, and print a big warning letting the user know
> what is happening and why, instead of silently shrinking the memory size
> specified by the user.
>
> I've CC'ed Andre, he's the last one who made changes to the memory layout when
> he added the flash device.
Why don't we just put that inside the MMIO "region", so after the RTC, for
instance? This is in a separate memslot anyway, and there is plenty of
space there for a 64K page.
I'd just add some lines to arm/include/arm-common/kvm-arch.h to that
effect.
Cheers,
Andre
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
