[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-arm] [Question] Memory hotplug clarification for Qemu ARM/virt

From: Laszlo Ersek
Subject: Re: [Qemu-arm] [Question] Memory hotplug clarification for Qemu ARM/virt
Date: Thu, 9 May 2019 23:48:13 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1

On 05/09/19 18:35, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Wed, 8 May 2019 22:26:12 +0200
> Laszlo Ersek <address@hidden> wrote:
>> On 05/08/19 14:50, Robin Murphy wrote:
>>> Hi Shameer,
>>> On 08/05/2019 11:15, Shameerali Kolothum Thodi wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> This series here[0] attempts to add support for PCDIMM in QEMU for
>>>> ARM/Virt platform and has stumbled upon an issue as it is not clear(at
>>>> least
>>>> from Qemu/EDK2 point of view) how in physical world the hotpluggable
>>>> memory is handled by kernel.
>>>> The proposed implementation in Qemu, builds the SRAT and DSDT parts
>>>> and uses GED device to trigger the hotplug. This works fine.
>>>> But when we added the DT node corresponding to the PCDIMM(cold plug
>>>> scenario), we noticed that Guest kernel see this memory during early boot
>>>> even if we are booting with ACPI. Because of this, hotpluggable memory
>>>> may end up in zone normal and make it non-hot-un-pluggable even if Guest
>>>> boots with ACPI.
>>>> Further discussions[1] revealed that, EDK2 UEFI has no means to
>>>> interpret the
>>>> ACPI content from Qemu(this is designed to do so) and uses DT info to
>>>> build the GetMemoryMap(). To solve this, introduced "hotpluggable"
>>>> property
>>>> to DT memory node(patches #7 & #8 from [0]) so that UEFI can
>>>> differentiate
>>>> the nodes and exclude the hotpluggable ones from GetMemoryMap().
>>>> But then Laszlo rightly pointed out that in order to accommodate the
>>>> changes
>>>> into UEFI we need to know how exactly Linux expects/handles all the
>>>> hotpluggable memory scenarios. Please find the discussion here[2].
>>>> For ease, I am just copying the relevant comment from Laszlo below,
>>>> /******
>>>> "Given patches #7 and #8, as I understand them, the firmware cannot
>>>> distinguish
>>>>   hotpluggable & present, from hotpluggable & absent. The firmware can
>>>> only
>>>>   skip both hotpluggable cases. That's fine in that the firmware will
>>>> hog neither
>>>>   type -- but is that OK for the OS as well, for both ACPI boot and DT
>>>> boot?
>>>> Consider in particular the "hotpluggable & present, ACPI boot" case.
>>>> Assuming
>>>> we modify the firmware to skip "hotpluggable" altogether, the UEFI memmap
>>>> will not include the range despite it being present at boot.
>>>> Presumably, ACPI
>>>> will refer to the range somehow, however. Will that not confuse the OS?
>>>> When Igor raised this earlier, I suggested that
>>>> hotpluggable-and-present should
>>>> be added by the firmware, but also allocated immediately, as
>>>> EfiBootServicesData
>>>> type memory. This will prevent other drivers in the firmware from
>>>> allocating AcpiNVS
>>>> or Reserved chunks from the same memory range, the UEFI memmap will
>>>> contain
>>>> the range as EfiBootServicesData, and then the OS can release that
>>>> allocation in
>>>> one go early during boot.
>>>> But this really has to be clarified from the Linux kernel's
>>>> expectations. Please
>>>> formalize all of the following cases:
>>>> OS boot (DT/ACPI)  hotpluggable & ...  GetMemoryMap() should report
>>>> as  DT/ACPI should report as
>>>> -----------------  ------------------ 
>>>> -------------------------------  ------------------------
>>>> DT                 present             ?                                ?
>>>> DT                 absent              ?                                ?
>>>> ACPI               present             ?                                ?
>>>> ACPI               absent              ?                                ?
>>>> Again, this table is dictated by Linux."
>>>> ******/
>>>> Could you please take a look at this and let us know what is expected
>>>> here from
>>>> a Linux kernel view point.
>>> For arm64, so far we've not even been considering DT-based hotplug - as
>>> far as I'm aware there would still be a big open question there around
>>> notification mechanisms and how to describe them. The DT stuff so far
>>> has come from the PowerPC folks, so it's probably worth seeing what
>>> their ideas are.
>>> ACPI-wise I've always assumed/hoped that hotplug-related things should
>>> be sufficiently well-specified in UEFI that "do whatever x86/IA-64 do"
>>> would be enough for us.
>> As far as I can see in UEFI v2.8 -- and I had checked the spec before
>> dumping the table with the many question marks on Shameer --, all the
>> hot-plug language in the spec refers to USB and PCI hot-plug in the
>> preboot environment. There is not a single word about hot-plug at OS
>> runtime (regarding any device or component type), nor about memory
>> hot-plug (at any time).
>> Looking to x86 appears valid -- so what does the Linux kernel expect on
>> that architecture, in the "ACPI" rows of the table?
> I could only answer from QEMU x86 perspective.
> QEMU for x86 guests currently doesn't add hot-pluggable RAM into E820
> because of different linux guests tend to cannibalize it, making it non
> unpluggable. The last culprit I recall was KASLR.
> So I'd refrain from reporting hotpluggable RAM in GetMemoryMap() if
> it's possible (it's probably hack (spec deosn't say anything about it)
> but it mostly works for Linux (plug/unplug) and Windows guest also
> fine with plug part (no unplug there)).

I can accept this as a perfectly valid design. Which would mean, QEMU should 
mark each hotpluggable RAM range in the DTB for the firmware with the special 
new property, regardless of its initial ("cold") plugged-ness, and then the 
firmware will not expose the range in the GCD memory space map, and 
consequently in the UEFI memmap either.

IOW, our table is, thus far:

OS boot (DT/ACPI)  hotpluggable & ...  GetMemoryMap() should report as  DT/ACPI 
should report as
-----------------  ------------------  -------------------------------  
DT                 present             ABSENT                           ?
DT                 absent              ABSENT                           ?
ACPI               present             ABSENT                           PRESENT
ACPI               absent              ABSENT                           ABSENT

In the firmware, I only need to care about the GetMemoryMap() column, so I can 
work with this. Can someone please file a feature request at 
<https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/>, for the ArmVirtPkg Package, with these 


> As for physical systems, there are out there ones that do report
> hotpluggable RAM in GetMemoryMap().
>> Shameer: if you (Huawei) are represented on the USWG / ASWG, I suggest
>> re-raising the question on those lists too; at least the "ACPI" rows of
>> the table.
>> Thanks!
>> Laszlo
>>> Robin.
>>>> (Hi Laszlo/Igor/Eric, please feel free to add/change if I have missed
>>>> any valid
>>>> points above).
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Shameer
>>>> [0] https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/10890919/
>>>> [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10863299/
>>>> [2] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10890937/

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]