[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] host physical address width issues/questions for x86_64
From: |
Peter Xu |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] host physical address width issues/questions for x86_64 |
Date: |
Sun, 15 Oct 2017 11:53:18 +0800 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) |
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 11:14:03AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 18:01:44 +0100
> "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > * Prasad Singamsetty (address@hidden) wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I am new to the alias. I have some questions on this subject
> > > and seek some clarifications from the experts in the team.
> > > I ran into a couple of issues when I tried with large configuration
> > > ( >= 1TB memory, > 255 CPUs) for x86_64 guest machine.
> > >
> > > 1. QEMU uses the default value of 40 (TCG_PHYS_ADDR_BITS) for address
> > > width if user has not specified phys-bits or host-phys-bits=true
> > > property. The default value is obviously not sufficient and
> > > causing guest kernel to crash if configured with >= 1TB
> > > memory. Depending on the linux kernel version in the guest the
> > > panic was in different code paths. The workaround is for the
> > > user to specify the phys-bits property or set the property
> > > host-phys-bits=true.
> > >
> > > QUESTIONS:
> ...
> > > 2. host_address_width in DMAR table structure
> > >
> > > In this case, the default value is set to 39
> > > (VTD_HOST_ADDRESS_WIDTH - 1). With interrupt remapping
> > > enabled for the intel iommu and the guest is configured
> > > with > 255 cpus and >= 1TB memory, the guest kernel hangs
> > > during boot up. This need to be fixed.
> > >
> > > QUESTION:
> > > The question here again is can we fix this to use the
> > > real address width from the host as the default?
> >
> > I don't know DMAR stuff; chatting to Alex (cc'd) it does sound
> > like that's an ommission that should be fixed.
>
> [CC +Peter]
>
> On physical hardware VT-d supports either 39 or 48 bit address widths
> and generally you'd expect a sufficiently capable IOMMU to be matched
> with the CPU. Seems QEMU has only implemented a lower bit width and
> it should probably be forcing phys bits of the VM to 39 to match until
> the extended width can be implemented. Thanks,
>
> Alex
There were patches that tried to enable 48 bits GAW but it was
not accepted somehow:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2016-12/msg01886.html
Would this help in any way?
Thanks,
--
Peter Xu
- [Qemu-devel] host physical address width issues/questions for x86_64, Prasad Singamsetty, 2017/10/13
- Re: [Qemu-devel] host physical address width issues/questions for x86_64, Dr. David Alan Gilbert, 2017/10/13
- Re: [Qemu-devel] host physical address width issues/questions for x86_64, Alex Williamson, 2017/10/13
- Re: [Qemu-devel] host physical address width issues/questions for x86_64,
Peter Xu <=
- Re: [Qemu-devel] host physical address width issues/questions for x86_64, Prasad Singamsetty, 2017/10/16
- Re: [Qemu-devel] host physical address width issues/questions for x86_64, Peter Xu, 2017/10/16
- Re: [Qemu-devel] host physical address width issues/questions for x86_64, Fam Zheng, 2017/10/18
- Re: [Qemu-devel] host physical address width issues/questions for x86_64, Prasad Singamsetty, 2017/10/18
- Re: [Qemu-devel] host physical address width issues/questions for x86_64, Peter Xu, 2017/10/18
- Re: [Qemu-devel] host physical address width issues/questions for x86_64, Prasad Singamsetty, 2017/10/20
- Re: [Qemu-devel] host physical address width issues/questions for x86_64, Peter Xu, 2017/10/23
- Re: [Qemu-devel] host physical address width issues/questions for x86_64, Prasad Singamsetty, 2017/10/23
- Re: [Qemu-devel] host physical address width issues/questions for x86_64, Peter Xu, 2017/10/26
- Re: [Qemu-devel] host physical address width issues/questions for x86_64, Michael S. Tsirkin, 2017/10/26