[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH RFCv2 2/4] i386/pc: relocate 4g start to 1T where applicable
|
From: |
Daniel P . Berrangé |
|
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH RFCv2 2/4] i386/pc: relocate 4g start to 1T where applicable |
|
Date: |
Wed, 16 Feb 2022 09:51:15 +0000 |
|
User-agent: |
Mutt/2.1.5 (2021-12-30) |
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 10:53:58AM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > I don't know what behavior should be if firmware tries to program
> > PCI64 hole beyond supported phys-bits.
>
> Well, you are basically f*cked.
>
> Unfortunately there is no reliable way to figure what phys-bits actually
> is. Because of that the firmware (both seabios and edk2) tries to place
> the pci64 hole as low as possible.
>
> The long version:
>
> qemu advertises phys-bits=40 to the guest by default. Probably because
> this is what the first amd opteron processors had, assuming that it
> would be a safe default. Then intel came, releasing processors with
> phys-bits=36, even recent (desktop-class) hardware has phys-bits=39.
> Boom.
>
> End result is that edk2 uses a 32G pci64 window by default, which is
> placed at the first 32G border beyond normal ram. So for virtual
> machines with up to ~ 30G ram (including reservations for memory
> hotplug) the pci64 hole covers 32G -> 64G in guest physical address
> space, which is low enough that it works on hardware with phys-bits=36.
>
> If your VM has more than 32G of memory the pci64 hole will move and
> phys-bits=36 isn't enough any more, but given that you probably only do
> that on more beefy hosts which can take >= 64G of RAM and have a larger
> physical address space this heuristic works good enough in practice.
>
> Changing phys-bits behavior has been discussed on and off since years.
> It's tricky to change for live migration compatibility reasons.
>
> We got the host-phys-bits and host-phys-bits-limit properties, which
> solve some of the phys-bits problems.
>
> * host-phys-bits=on makes sure the phys-bits advertised to the guest
> actually works. It's off by default though for backward
> compatibility reasons (except microvm). Also because turning it on
> breaks live migration of machines between hosts with different
> phys-bits.
RHEL has shipped with host-phys-bits=on in its machine types
sinec RHEL-7. If it is good enough for RHEL machine types
for 8 years, IMHO, it is a sign that its reasonable to do the
same with upstream for new machine types.
> * host-phys-bits-limit can be used to tweak phys-bits to
> be lower than what the host supports. Which can be used for
> live migration compatibility, i.e. if you have a pool of machines
> where some have 36 and some 39 you can limit phys-bits to 36 so
> live migration from 39 hosts to 36 hosts works.
RHEL machine types have set this to host-phys-bits-limit=48
since RHEL-8 days, to avoid accidentally enabling 5-level
paging in guests without explicit user opt-in.
> What is missing:
>
> * Some way for the firmware to get a phys-bits value it can actually
> use. One possible way would be to have a paravirtual bit somewhere
> telling whenever host-phys-bits is enabled or not.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
- Re: [PATCH RFCv2 1/4] hw/i386: add 4g boundary start to X86MachineState, (continued)
- [PATCH RFCv2 2/4] i386/pc: relocate 4g start to 1T where applicable, Joao Martins, 2022/02/07
- Re: [PATCH RFCv2 2/4] i386/pc: relocate 4g start to 1T where applicable, Igor Mammedov, 2022/02/14
- Re: [PATCH RFCv2 2/4] i386/pc: relocate 4g start to 1T where applicable, Joao Martins, 2022/02/14
- Re: [PATCH RFCv2 2/4] i386/pc: relocate 4g start to 1T where applicable, Igor Mammedov, 2022/02/14
- Re: [PATCH RFCv2 2/4] i386/pc: relocate 4g start to 1T where applicable, Gerd Hoffmann, 2022/02/15
- Re: [PATCH RFCv2 2/4] i386/pc: relocate 4g start to 1T where applicable, Joao Martins, 2022/02/15
- Re: [PATCH RFCv2 2/4] i386/pc: relocate 4g start to 1T where applicable, Gerd Hoffmann, 2022/02/16
- Re: [PATCH RFCv2 2/4] i386/pc: relocate 4g start to 1T where applicable, Joao Martins, 2022/02/16
- Re: [PATCH RFCv2 2/4] i386/pc: relocate 4g start to 1T where applicable, Gerd Hoffmann, 2022/02/16
- Re: [PATCH RFCv2 2/4] i386/pc: relocate 4g start to 1T where applicable,
Daniel P . Berrangé <=
- Re: [PATCH RFCv2 2/4] i386/pc: relocate 4g start to 1T where applicable, Dr. David Alan Gilbert, 2022/02/21
- Re: [PATCH RFCv2 2/4] i386/pc: relocate 4g start to 1T where applicable, Igor Mammedov, 2022/02/22
- Re: [PATCH RFCv2 2/4] i386/pc: relocate 4g start to 1T where applicable, Dr. David Alan Gilbert, 2022/02/22
- Re: [PATCH RFCv2 2/4] i386/pc: relocate 4g start to 1T where applicable, Gerd Hoffmann, 2022/02/22
- Re: [PATCH RFCv2 2/4] i386/pc: relocate 4g start to 1T where applicable, Igor Mammedov, 2022/02/23
- Re: [PATCH RFCv2 2/4] i386/pc: relocate 4g start to 1T where applicable, Dr. David Alan Gilbert, 2022/02/23
- Re: [PATCH RFCv2 2/4] i386/pc: relocate 4g start to 1T where applicable, Igor Mammedov, 2022/02/23
- Re: [PATCH RFCv2 2/4] i386/pc: relocate 4g start to 1T where applicable, Joao Martins, 2022/02/18
- Re: [PATCH RFCv2 2/4] i386/pc: relocate 4g start to 1T where applicable, Igor Mammedov, 2022/02/21
- Re: [PATCH RFCv2 2/4] i386/pc: relocate 4g start to 1T where applicable, Joao Martins, 2022/02/21