On Fri, 3 May 2024, Edgar E. Iglesias wrote:
> From: "Edgar E. Iglesias" <edgar.igles...@amd.com>
>
> Pass the ram_addr offset to xen_map_cache.
> This is in preparation for adding grant mappings that need
> to compute the address within the RAMBlock.
>
> No functional changes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Edgar E. Iglesias <edgar.igles...@amd.com>
> ---
> hw/xen/xen-mapcache.c | 16 +++++++++++-----
> include/sysemu/xen-mapcache.h | 2 ++
> system/physmem.c | 9 +++++----
> 3 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/xen/xen-mapcache.c b/hw/xen/xen-mapcache.c
> index ec95445696..26bc38a9e3 100644
> --- a/hw/xen/xen-mapcache.c
> +++ b/hw/xen/xen-mapcache.c
> @@ -167,7 +167,8 @@ static void xen_remap_bucket(MapCache *mc,
> void *vaddr,
> hwaddr size,
> hwaddr address_index,
> - bool dummy)
> + bool dummy,
> + ram_addr_t ram_offset)
> {
> uint8_t *vaddr_base;
> xen_pfn_t *pfns;
> @@ -266,6 +267,7 @@ static void xen_remap_bucket(MapCache *mc,
>
> static uint8_t *xen_map_cache_unlocked(MapCache *mc,
> hwaddr phys_addr, hwaddr size,
> + ram_addr_t ram_offset,
> uint8_t lock, bool dma, bool is_write)
> {
> MapCacheEntry *entry, *pentry = NULL,
> @@ -337,14 +339,16 @@ tryagain:
> if (!entry) {
> entry = g_new0(MapCacheEntry, 1);
> pentry->next = entry;
> - xen_remap_bucket(mc, entry, NULL, cache_size, address_index, dummy);
> + xen_remap_bucket(mc, entry, NULL, cache_size, address_index, dummy,
> + ram_offset);
> } else if (!entry->lock) {
> if (!entry->vaddr_base || entry->paddr_index != address_index ||
> entry->size != cache_size ||
> !test_bits(address_offset >> XC_PAGE_SHIFT,
> test_bit_size >> XC_PAGE_SHIFT,
> entry->valid_mapping)) {
> - xen_remap_bucket(mc, entry, NULL, cache_size, address_index,
> dummy);
> + xen_remap_bucket(mc, entry, NULL, cache_size, address_index,
> dummy,
> + ram_offset);
> }
> }
>
> @@ -391,13 +395,15 @@ tryagain:
>
> uint8_t *xen_map_cache(MemoryRegion *mr,
> hwaddr phys_addr, hwaddr size,
> + ram_addr_t ram_addr_offset,
> uint8_t lock, bool dma,
> bool is_write)
> {
> uint8_t *p;
>
> mapcache_lock(mapcache);
> - p = xen_map_cache_unlocked(mapcache, phys_addr, size, lock, dma,
> is_write);
> + p = xen_map_cache_unlocked(mapcache, phys_addr, size, ram_addr_offset,
> + lock, dma, is_write);
> mapcache_unlock(mapcache);
> return p;
> }
> @@ -632,7 +638,7 @@ static uint8_t *xen_replace_cache_entry_unlocked(MapCache
> *mc,
> trace_xen_replace_cache_entry_dummy(old_phys_addr, new_phys_addr);
>
> xen_remap_bucket(mc, entry, entry->vaddr_base,
> - cache_size, address_index, false);
> + cache_size, address_index, false, new_phys_addr);
Everything else makes sense, but I don't understand how can it be that
new_phys_addr is the block->offset here?
> if (!test_bits(address_offset >> XC_PAGE_SHIFT,
> test_bit_size >> XC_PAGE_SHIFT,
> entry->valid_mapping)) {
> diff --git a/include/sysemu/xen-mapcache.h b/include/sysemu/xen-mapcache.h
> index 1ec9e66752..b5e3ea1bc0 100644
> --- a/include/sysemu/xen-mapcache.h
> +++ b/include/sysemu/xen-mapcache.h
> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ typedef hwaddr (*phys_offset_to_gaddr_t)(hwaddr phys_offset,
> void xen_map_cache_init(phys_offset_to_gaddr_t f,
> void *opaque);
> uint8_t *xen_map_cache(MemoryRegion *mr, hwaddr phys_addr, hwaddr size,
> + ram_addr_t ram_addr_offset,
> uint8_t lock, bool dma,
> bool is_write);
> ram_addr_t xen_ram_addr_from_mapcache(void *ptr);
> @@ -37,6 +38,7 @@ static inline void
> xen_map_cache_init(phys_offset_to_gaddr_t f,
> static inline uint8_t *xen_map_cache(MemoryRegion *mr,
> hwaddr phys_addr,
> hwaddr size,
> + ram_addr_t ram_addr_offset,
> uint8_t lock,
> bool dma,
> bool is_write)
> diff --git a/system/physmem.c b/system/physmem.c
> index b7847db1a2..33d09f7571 100644
> --- a/system/physmem.c
> +++ b/system/physmem.c
> @@ -2231,13 +2231,14 @@ static void *qemu_ram_ptr_length(RAMBlock *block,
> ram_addr_t addr,
> */
> if (xen_mr_is_memory(block->mr)) {
> return xen_map_cache(block->mr, block->offset + addr,
> - len, lock, lock,
> - is_write);
> + len, block->offset,
> + lock, lock, is_write);
> }
>
> block->host = xen_map_cache(block->mr, block->offset,
> - block->max_length, 1,
> - lock, is_write);
> + block->max_length,
> + block->offset,
> + 1, lock, is_write);
> }
This is OK but it is really making it clear that there is a mistake in
the code. OK for now but it is something to fix in the future.
> return ramblock_ptr(block, addr);
> --
> 2.40.1
>
