On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 10:16:41AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
> <konrad.w...@oracle.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 01, 2017 at 08:45:45AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> >> On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 4:54 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <kon...@darnok.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> > ..snip..
> >> >> >> Is there a resource I can read more about why the hypervisor needs to
> >> >> >> have this M2P mapping for nvdimm support?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > M2P is basically an array of frame numbers. It's indexed by the host
> >> >> > page frame number, or the machine frame number (MFN) in Xen's
> >> >> > definition. The n'th entry records the guest page frame number that is
> >> >> > mapped to MFN n. M2P is one of the core data structures used in Xen
> >> >> > memory management, and is used to convert MFN to guest PFN. A
> >> >> > read-only version of M2P is also exposed as part of ABI to guest. In
> >> >> > the previous design discussion, we decided to put the management of
> >> >> > NVDIMM in the existing Xen memory management as much as possible, so
> >> >> > we need to build M2P for NVDIMM as well.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks, but what I don't understand is why this M2P lookup is needed?
> >> >
> >> > Xen uses it to construct the EPT page tables for the guests.
> >> >
> >> >> Does Xen establish this metadata for PCI mmio ranges as well? What Xen
> >> >
> >> > It doesn't have that (M2P) for PCI MMIO ranges. For those it has an
> >> > ranges construct (since those are usually contingous and given
> >> > in ranges to a guest).
> >>
> >> So, I'm confused again. This patchset / enabling requires both M2P and
> >> contiguous PMEM ranges. If the PMEM is contiguous it seems you don't
> >> need M2P and can just reuse the MMIO enabling, or am I missing
> >> something?
> >
> > I think I am confusing you.
> >
> > The patchset (specifically 04/15] xen/x86: add XEN_SYSCTL_nvdimm_pmem_setup
> > to setup host pmem )
> > adds a hypercall to tell Xen where on the NVDIMM it can put
> > the M2P array and as well the frametables ('struct page').
> >
> > There is no range support. The reason is that if break up
> > an NVDIMM in various chunks (and then put a filesystem on top of it) - and
> > then figure out which of the SPAs belong to the file - and then
> > "expose" that file to a guest as NVDIMM - it's SPAs won't
> > be contingous. Hence the hypervisor would need to break down
> > the 'ranges' structure down in either a bitmap or an M2P
> > and also store it. This can get quite tricky so you may
> > as well just start with an M2P and 'struct page'.
>
> Ok... but the problem then becomes that the filesystem is free to
> change the file-offset to SPA mapping any time it wants. So the M2P
> support is broken if it expects static relationships.
Can't you flock an file and that will freeze it? Or mlock it since
one is rather mmap-ing it?
>
> > The placement of those datastructures is "
> > v2 patch
> > series relies on users/admins in Dom0 instead of Dom0 driver to indicate
> > the
> > location to store the frametable and M2P of pmem.
> > "
> >
> > Hope this helps?
>
> It does, but it still seems we're stuck between either 1/ not needing
> M2P if we can pass a whole pmem-namespace through to the guest or 2/
> M2P being broken by non-static file-offset to physical address
> mappings.
Aye. So how can 2/ be fixed? I am assuming you would have the same
issue with KVM - if the file is 'moving' underneath (and the file-offset
to SPA has changed) won't that affect the EPT and other page entries?
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
