Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 06/11] nvdimm acpi: initialize the resource used by NVDIMM ACPI

[Igor Mammedov]

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 02:35:41 +0800
Xiao Guangrong <address@hidden> wrote:

> On 02/16/2016 01:24 AM, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 23:53:13 +0800
> > Xiao Guangrong <address@hidden> wrote:
> >  
> >> On 02/15/2016 09:32 PM, Igor Mammedov wrote:  
> >>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 13:45:59 +0200
> >>> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <address@hidden> wrote:
> >>>  
> >>>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 11:47:42AM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:  
> >>>>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 18:13:38 +0800
> >>>>> Xiao Guangrong <address@hidden> wrote:
> >>>>>  
> >>>>>> On 02/15/2016 05:18 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:  
> >>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:11:05AM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:  
> >>>>>>>> On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 13:57:27 +0800
> >>>>>>>> Xiao Guangrong <address@hidden> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>  
> >>>>>>>>> On 02/08/2016 07:03 PM, Igor Mammedov wrote:  
> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 02:50:05 +0800
> >>>>>>>>>> Xiao Guangrong <address@hidden> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>  
> >>>>>>>>>>> 32 bits IO port starting from 0x0a18 in guest is reserved for 
> >>>>>>>>>>> NVDIMM
> >>>>>>>>>>> ACPI emulation. The table, NVDIMM_DSM_MEM_FILE, will be patched 
> >>>>>>>>>>> into
> >>>>>>>>>>> NVDIMM ACPI binary code
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> OSPM uses this port to tell QEMU the final address of the DSM 
> >>>>>>>>>>> memory
> >>>>>>>>>>> and notify QEMU to emulate the DSM method  
> >>>>>>>>>> Would you need to pass control to QEMU if each NVDIMM had its whole
> >>>>>>>>>> label area MemoryRegion mapped right after its storage 
> >>>>>>>>>> MemoryRegion?
> >>>>>>>>>>  
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> No, label data is not mapped into guest's address space and it only
> >>>>>>>>> can be accessed by DSM method indirectly.  
> >>>>>>>> Yep, per spec label data should be accessed via _DSM but question
> >>>>>>>> wasn't about it,  
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ah, sorry, i missed your question.
> >>>>>>  
> >>>>>>>> Why would one map only 4Kb window and serialize label data
> >>>>>>>> via it if it could be mapped as whole, that way _DMS method will be
> >>>>>>>> much less complicated and there won't be need to add/support a 
> >>>>>>>> protocol
> >>>>>>>> for its serialization.
> >>>>>>>>  
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Is it ever accessed on data path? If not I prefer the current 
> >>>>>>> approach:  
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The label data is only accessed via two DSM commands - Get Namespace 
> >>>>>> Label
> >>>>>> Data and Set Namespace Label Data, no other place need to be emulated.
> >>>>>>  
> >>>>>>> limit the window used, the serialization protocol seems rather simple.
> >>>>>>>  
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Label data is at least 128k which is big enough for BIOS as it 
> >>>>>> allocates
> >>>>>> memory at 0 ~ 4G which is tight region. It also needs guest OS to 
> >>>>>> support
> >>>>>> lager max-xfer (the max size that can be transferred one time), the 
> >>>>>> size
> >>>>>> in current Linux NVDIMM driver is 4k.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> However, using lager DSM buffer can help us to simplify NVDIMM hotplug 
> >>>>>> for
> >>>>>> the case that too many nvdimm devices present in the system and their 
> >>>>>> FIT
> >>>>>> info can not be filled into one page. Each PMEM-only device needs 0xb8 
> >>>>>> bytes
> >>>>>> and we can append 256 memory devices at most, so 12 pages are needed to
> >>>>>> contain this info. The prototype we implemented is using 
> >>>>>> ourself-defined
> >>>>>> protocol to read piece of _FIT and concatenate them before return to 
> >>>>>> Guest,
> >>>>>> please refer to:
> >>>>>> https://github.com/xiaogr/qemu/commit/c46ce01c8433ac0870670304360b3c4aa414143a
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As 12 pages are not small region for BIOS and the _FIT size may be 
> >>>>>> extended in the
> >>>>>> future development (eg, if PBLK is introduced) i am not sure if we 
> >>>>>> need this. Of
> >>>>>> course, another approach to simplify it is that we limit the number of 
> >>>>>> NVDIMM
> >>>>>> device to make sure their _FIT < 4k.  
> >>>>> My suggestion is not to have only one label area for every NVDIMM but
> >>>>> rather to map each label area right after each NVDIMM's data memory.
> >>>>> That way _DMS can be made non-serialized and guest could handle
> >>>>> label data in parallel.  
> >>>>
> >>>> I think that alignment considerations would mean we are burning up
> >>>> 1G of phys address space for this. For PAE we only have 64G
> >>>> of this address space, so this would be a problem.  
> >>> That's true that it will burning away address space, however that
> >>> just means that PAE guests would not be able to handle as many
> >>> NVDIMMs as 64bit guests. The same applies to DIMMs as well, with
> >>> alignment enforced. If one needs more DIMMs he/she can switch
> >>> to 64bit guest to use them.
> >>>
> >>> It's trade of inefficient GPA consumption vs efficient NVDIMMs access.
> >>> Also with fully mapped label area for each NVDIMM we don't have to
> >>> introduce and maintain any guest visible serialization protocol
> >>> (protocol for serializing _DSM via 4K window) which becomes ABI.  
> >>
> >> It's true for label access but it is not for the long term as we will
> >> need to support other _DSM commands such as vendor specific command,
> >> PBLK dsm command, also NVDIMM MCE related commands will be introduced
> >> in the future, so we will come back here at that time. :(  
> > I believe for block mode NVDIMM would also need per NVDIMM mapping
> > for performance reasons (parallel access).
> > As for the rest could that commands go via MMIO that we usually
> > use for control path?  
> 
> So both input data and output data go through single MMIO, we need to
> introduce a protocol to pass these data, that is complex?
> 
> And is any MMIO we can reuse (more complexer？) or we should allocate this
> MMIO page （the old question - where to allocated?）?
Maybe you could reuse/extend memhotplug IO interface,
or alternatively as Michael suggested add a vendor specific PCI_Config,
I'd suggest PM device for that (hw/acpi/[piix4.c|ihc9.c])
which I like even better since you won't need to care about which ports
to allocate at all.