On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 14:13:23 +0800
Zhu Guihua <zhugh.f...@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> On 03/24/2015 06:26 PM, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 17:34:29 +0800
> > Zhu Guihua <zhugh.f...@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 03/23/2015 08:47 PM, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 18:59:28 +0800
> >>> Zhu Guihua <zhugh.f...@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 03/16/2015 10:59 PM, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> >>>> [...]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/hw/i386/acpi-dsdt-mem-hotplug.dsl
> >>>>> b/hw/i386/acpi-dsdt-mem-hotplug.dsl
> >>>>> index 1e9ec39..ef847e2 100644
> >>>>> --- a/hw/i386/acpi-dsdt-mem-hotplug.dsl
> >>>>> +++ b/hw/i386/acpi-dsdt-mem-hotplug.dsl
> >>>>> @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@
> >>>>> External(MEMORY_SLOT_PROXIMITY, FieldUnitObj) // read
> >>>>> only
> >>>>> External(MEMORY_SLOT_ENABLED, FieldUnitObj) // 1 if
> >>>>> enabled, read only
> >>>>> External(MEMORY_SLOT_INSERT_EVENT, FieldUnitObj) //
> >>>>> (read) 1 if has a insert event. (write) 1 to clear event
> >>>>> + External(MEMORY_SLOT_REMOVE_EVENT, FieldUnitObj) // (read)
> >>>>> 1 if has a remove event. (write) 1 to clear event
> >>>>> External(MEMORY_SLOT_SLECTOR, FieldUnitObj) // DIMM
> >>>>> selector, write only
> >>>>> External(MEMORY_SLOT_OST_EVENT, FieldUnitObj) // _OST
> >>>>> event code, write only
> >>>>> External(MEMORY_SLOT_OST_STATUS, FieldUnitObj) // _OST
> >>>>> status code, write only
> >>>>> @@ -55,6 +56,8 @@
> >>>>> If (LEqual(MEMORY_SLOT_INSERT_EVENT, One)) { //
> >>>>> Memory device needs check
> >>>>> MEMORY_SLOT_NOTIFY_METHOD(Local0, 1)
> >>>>> Store(1, MEMORY_SLOT_INSERT_EVENT)
> >>>>> + } Elseif (LEqual(MEMORY_SLOT_REMOVE_EVENT, One)) {
> >>>>> // Ejection request
> >>>>> + MEMORY_SLOT_NOTIFY_METHOD(Local0, 3)
> >>>>> clear removing field here.
> >>>> You mean clear remove event here?
> >>> yes
> >> I tested this method, clear remove event here will lead to guest
> >> kernel panic.
> > it shouldn't cause panic if it only clears flag in QEMU
> > (that's what it should do).
> >
> >
> >>>>>> }
> >>>>>> // TODO: handle memory eject request
> >>>>>> Add(Local0, One, Local0) // goto next DIMM
> >>>>>> @@ -156,5 +159,12 @@
> >>>>>> Store(Arg2, MEMORY_SLOT_OST_STATUS)
> >>>>>> Release(MEMORY_SLOT_LOCK)
> >>>>>> }
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> + Method(MEMORY_SLOT_EJECT_METHOD, 2) {
> >>>>>> + Acquire(MEMORY_SLOT_LOCK, 0xFFFF)
> >>>>>> + Store(ToInteger(Arg0), MEMORY_SLOT_SLECTOR) // select
> >>>>>> DIMM
> >>>>>> + Store(One, MEMORY_SLOT_REMOVE_EVENT)
> >>>>> redo it using enabled field. Otherwise it could cause guest/QEMU crash:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - if 1st memory was asked to be removed
> >>>>> - then OSPM processes it but has not called _EJ0 yet leaving is_removed
> >>>>> set
> >>>>> - then QEMU adds/removes another DIMM triggering slots scan
> >>>>> which would issue second Notify(remove) since is_removed is still
> >>>>> set
> >>>>> - as result it will cause failure in OSPM or in QEMU if OSPM issues
> >>>>> double EJ0()
> >>>>>
> >>>> If OSPM processed the ejection request but not called _EJ0, the device
> >>>> will still be present in qemu,
> >>>> we must handle this.
> >>> There is nothing to handle in this case, if OSPM hasn't called _EJ0 then
> >>> nothing happens and device stays in QEMU.
> >>>
> >>>> So I think OSPM issues double EJ0 maybe reasonable
> >>>> in this situation.
> >>>> What's your opinion?
> >>> the first _EJ0 must do ejection, as for the second I think it should be
> >>> NOP.
> >> So we should judge the enabled field to check whether the device is
> >> present before
> >> issuing Notify(remove)?
> > I wouldn't check if device is present.
> > I'd unconditionally clear it and make sure on QEMU side that
> > operation is NOP if device is not present.
>
> I'm sorry that I have not fully understood your meaning about
> 'redo it using enabled field'. How to do it?
>
> MEMORY_SLOT_ENABLED is read only, how can I use it to handle EJ0?
it is reserved in write side if you look at spec,
but appears that we can't reuse MEMORY_SLOT_ENABLED due to bug in
already released QEMU versions.
See another reply where I explained it in more details and suggested
how QSPM<->QEMU protocol should be amended.
>
> Thanks,
> Zhu
>
>
>
