Hi Shameer,
On 2/7/19 4:19 PM, Shameerali Kolothum Thodi wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Eric Auger [mailto:eric.auger@redhat.com]
>> Sent: 05 February 2019 17:33
>> To: eric.auger.pro@gmail.com; eric.auger@redhat.com;
>> qemu-devel@nongnu.org; qemu-arm@nongnu.org; peter.maydell@linaro.org;
>> Shameerali Kolothum Thodi <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>;
>> imammedo@redhat.com; david@redhat.com
>> Cc: dgilbert@redhat.com; david@gibson.dropbear.id.au; drjones@redhat.com
>> Subject: [PATCH v6 10/18] hw/arm/virt: Bump the 255GB initial RAM limit
>>
>> Now we have the extended memory map (high IO regions beyond the
>> scalable RAM) and dynamic IPA range support at KVM/ARM level
>> we can bump the legacy 255GB initial RAM limit. The actual maximum
>> RAM size now depends on the physical CPU and host kernel.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> hw/arm/virt.c | 26 +++++++-------------------
>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/hw/arm/virt.c b/hw/arm/virt.c
>> index b90ffc2e5d..f01886da22 100644
>> --- a/hw/arm/virt.c
>> +++ b/hw/arm/virt.c
>> @@ -93,22 +93,9 @@
>>
>> #define PLATFORM_BUS_NUM_IRQS 64
>>
>> -/* RAM limit in GB. Since VIRT_MEM starts at the 1GB mark, this means
>> - * RAM can go up to the 256GB mark, leaving 256GB of the physical
>> - * address space unallocated and free for future use between 256G and 512G.
>> - * If we need to provide more RAM to VMs in the future then we need to:
>> - * * allocate a second bank of RAM starting at 2TB and working up
>> - * * fix the DT and ACPI table generation code in QEMU to correctly
>> - * report two split lumps of RAM to the guest
>> - * * fix KVM in the host kernel to allow guests with >40 bit address spaces
>> - * (We don't want to fill all the way up to 512GB with RAM because
>> - * we might want it for non-RAM purposes later. Conversely it seems
>> - * reasonable to assume that anybody configuring a VM with a quarter
>> - * of a terabyte of RAM will be doing it on a host with more than a
>> - * terabyte of physical address space.)
>> - */
>> -#define RAMLIMIT_GB 255
>> -#define RAMLIMIT_BYTES (RAMLIMIT_GB * 1024ULL * 1024 * 1024)
>> +/* Legacy RAM limit in GB (< version 4.0) */
>> +#define LEGACY_RAMLIMIT_GB 255
>> +#define LEGACY_RAMLIMIT_BYTES (LEGACY_RAMLIMIT_GB * GiB)
>>
>> /* Addresses and sizes of our components.
>> * 0..128MB is space for a flash device so we can run bootrom code such as
>> UEFI.
>> @@ -149,7 +136,7 @@ static const MemMapEntry a15memmap[] = {
>> [VIRT_PCIE_MMIO] = { 0x10000000, 0x2eff0000 },
>> [VIRT_PCIE_PIO] = { 0x3eff0000, 0x00010000 },
>> [VIRT_PCIE_ECAM] = { 0x3f000000, 0x01000000 },
>> - [VIRT_MEM] = { 0x40000000, RAMLIMIT_BYTES },
>> + [VIRT_MEM] = { 0x40000000,
>> LEGACY_RAMLIMIT_BYTES },
>> };
>>
>> /*
>> @@ -1483,8 +1470,9 @@ static void machvirt_init(MachineState *machine)
>>
>> vms->smp_cpus = smp_cpus;
>>
>> - if (machine->ram_size > vms->memmap[VIRT_MEM].size) {
>> - error_report("mach-virt: cannot model more than %dGB RAM",
>> RAMLIMIT_GB);
>> + if (!vms->extended_memmap && machine->ram_size >
>> LEGACY_RAMLIMIT_GB) {
>
> Just hit this while testing, should this check be against LEGACY_RAMLIMIT_BYTES?
Definitively, my mistake. Thank you for spotting that.
Thanks
Eric
>
> Thanks,
> Shameer
>
>> + error_report("mach-virt: cannot model more than %dGB RAM",
>> + LEGACY_RAMLIMIT_GB);
>> exit(1);
>> }
>>
>> --
>> 2.20.1
>