qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Qemu-devel] Re: Unusual physical address when using 64-bit BAR


From: Avi Kivity
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: Unusual physical address when using 64-bit BAR
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 11:39:01 +0300
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100430 Fedora/3.0.4-3.fc13 Thunderbird/3.0.4

On 06/25/2010 12:51 AM, Cam Macdonell wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 5:04 AM, Avi Kivity<address@hidden>  wrote:
On 06/11/2010 08:31 PM, Cam Macdonell wrote:
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Cam Macdonell<address@hidden>
  wrote:

Hi,

I'm trying to use a 64-bit BAR for my shared memory device.  In simply
changing the memory type in pci_register_bar() to
PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64 I get an unusual physical address for
that BAR (and my driver crashes in pci_ioremap).

from lspci:

00:04.0 RAM memory: Qumranet, Inc. Device 1110
        Subsystem: Qumranet, Inc. Device 1100
        Flags: fast devsel, IRQ 10
        Memory at f1020000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=1K]
        Memory at f1021000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=4K]
        Memory at c20000000000 (64-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=1024M]
        Capabilities:<access denied>
00: f4 1a 10 11 03 00 10 00 00 00 00 05 00 00 00 00
10: 00 00 02 f1 00 10 02 f1 04 00 00 00 00 c2 00 00
20: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 f4 1a 00 11
30: 00 00 00 00 40 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0b 01 00 00

with DEBUG_MEMREG, I see

kvm_unregister_memory_area:666 Unregistering memory region
c20000000000 (40000000)
kvm_destroy_phys_mem:649 slot 7 start c20000000000 len 0 flags 0
IVSHMEM: addr = 3221225472 size = 1073741824
kvm_register_phys_mem:605 memory: gpa: c200c0000000, size: 40000000,
uaddr: 7f6dd7ffe000, slot: 7, flags: 0
kvm_unregister_memory_area:666 Unregistering memory region
c200c0000000 (40000000)
kvm_destroy_phys_mem:649 slot 7 start c200c0000000 len 0 flags 0
IVSHMEM: addr = 0 size = 1073741824
kvm_register_phys_mem:605 memory: gpa: c20000000000, size: 40000000,
uaddr: 7f6dd7ffe000, slot: 7, flags: 0
kvm_unregister_memory_area:666 Unregistering memory region
c20000000000 (40000000)
kvm_destroy_phys_mem:649 slot 7 start c20000000000 len 0 flags 0
IVSHMEM: addr = 0 size = 1073741824
kvm_register_phys_mem:605 memory: gpa: ffffffff00000000, size:
40000000, uaddr: 7f6dd7ffe000, slot: 7, flags: 0
kvm_unregister_memory_area:666 Unregistering memory region
ffffffff00000000 (40000000)
kvm_destroy_phys_mem:649 slot 7 start ffffffff00000000 len 0 flags 0
IVSHMEM: addr = 0 size = 1073741824
kvm_register_phys_mem:605 memory: gpa: c20000000000, size: 40000000,
uaddr: 7f6dd7ffe000, slot: 7, flags: 0

(the IVSHMEM lines are my debug statements)

address sizes   : 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual  (guest)
address sizes   : 38 bits physical, 48 bits virtual  (host)


Hi, I happened to run into this problem again when trying to use a
64-bit BAR.  I did a bit more digging and the test that is failing is
called from arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c in the guest and here it is.

static inline int phys_addr_valid(resource_size_t addr)
{
#ifdef CONFIG_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT
        return !(addr>>    boot_cpu_data.x86_phys_bits);
#else
        return 1;
#endif
}

the value of addr (in this case the 48-bit virtual address
c20000000000) is shifted to the right shift by
boot_cpu_data.x86_phys_bits (which is 40 bits, the physical address
size), so a non-zero value is returned which causes the test to fail
and generates the "invalid physical address" error in the guest.

Any help is appreciated as to whether this is a Qemu or guest kernel
issue.

The guest kernel should never have generated an address that is bigger than
cpu_phys_bits in the first place.  What's the value for cpu_phys_bits in the
guest? (/proc/cpuinfo, 'address sizes :' line).
Sorry I missed your reply until now.  The guest address sizes are as follows:

address sizes   : 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual

So the address c20000000000 is illegal.

Is this really the address the guest programmed, or is qemu misinterpreting
it?

Well, what's the answer?

--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]