Re: [PATCH RFC 1/6] i386/pc: Account IOVA reserved ranges above 4G boundary

[Joao Martins]

On 6/23/21 8:11 AM, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 16:49:00 +0100
> Joao Martins <joao.m.martins@oracle.com> wrote:
> 
>> It is assumed that the whole GPA space is available to be
>> DMA addressable, within a given address space limit. Since
>> v5.4 based that is not true, and VFIO will validate whether
>> the selected IOVA is indeed valid i.e. not reserved by IOMMU
>> on behalf of some specific devices or platform-defined.
>>
>> AMD systems with an IOMMU are examples of such platforms and
>> particularly may export only these ranges as allowed:
>>
>>      0000000000000000 - 00000000fedfffff (0      .. 3.982G)
>>      00000000fef00000 - 000000fcffffffff (3.983G .. 1011.9G)
>>      0000010000000000 - ffffffffffffffff (1Tb    .. 16Pb)
>>
>> We already know of accounting for the 4G hole, albeit if the
>> guest is big enough we will fail to allocate a >1010G given
>> the ~12G hole at the 1Tb boundary, reserved for HyperTransport.
>>
>> When creating the region above 4G, take into account what
>> IOVAs are allowed by defining the known allowed ranges
>> and search for the next free IOVA ranges. When finding a
>> invalid IOVA we mark them as reserved and proceed to the
>> next allowed IOVA region.
>>
>> After accounting for the 1Tb hole on AMD hosts, mtree should
>> look like:
>>
>> 0000000100000000-000000fcffffffff (prio 0, i/o):
>>      alias ram-above-4g @pc.ram 0000000080000000-000000fc7fffffff
>> 0000010000000000-000001037fffffff (prio 0, i/o):
>>      alias ram-above-1t @pc.ram 000000fc80000000-000000ffffffffff
> 
> why not push whole ram-above-4g above 1Tb mark
> when RAM is sufficiently large (regardless of used host),
> instead of creating yet another hole and all complexity it brings along?
> 

There's the problem with CMOS which describes memory above 4G, part of the
reason I cap it to the 1TB minus the reserved range i.e. for AMD, CMOS would
only describe up to 1T.

But should we not care about that then it's an option, I suppose.

We would waste 1Tb of address space because of 12G, and btw the logic here
is not so different than the 4G hole, in fact could probably share this
with it.