On 18.09.23 12:07, Ani Sinha wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 18 Sept, 2023, 3:03 pm David Hildenbrand, <david@redhat.com
> <mailto:david@redhat.com>> wrote:
>
> >>
> >>>> /*
> >>>> * The 64bit pci hole starts after "above 4G RAM" and
> >>>> * potentially the space reserved for memory hotplug.
> >>>> */
> >>>>
> >>>> There is the
> >>>> ROUND_UP(hole64_start, 1 * GiB);
> >>>> in there that is not really required for the !hole64 case. It
> >>>> shouldn't matter much in practice I think (besides an aligned
> value
> >>>> showing up in the error message).
> >>>>
> >>>> We could factor out most of that calculation into a
> >>>> separate function, skipping that alignment to make that
> >>>> clearer.
> >>> Yeah this whole memory segmentation is quite complicated and
> might benefit from a qemu doc or a refactoring.
> >>
> >> Absolutely. Do you have time to work on that (including the
> updated fix?).
> >
> > Other than the fix you proposed I am not sure if we need to fix
> anything else atm. Seems physical address space bound checks are
> already in place.
> > Re: doc, maybe. I will add it to my TODO list.
>
> Will you send a proper patch, ideally not using pc_pci_hole64_start()
> but instead the same logic without the final alignment to 1 GiB?
>
>
> I'll send. No problem. Could you answer my other question please ?
Sorry, which one did I miss
Ok hopefully my last question. I am still confused on something. Does the above mean that the hole64 will actually start from an address that is beyond maxram? Like basically if you added all of ram_below_4G, ram_above_4G, hot plug_mem and pci_hole64 then can it exceed maxram? I think it will. Does this not an issue?