diff options
Diffstat (limited to '')
| -rw-r--r-- | results/classifier/108/other/1193 | 31 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | results/classifier/108/other/11933524 | 1135 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | results/classifier/108/other/1193555 | 31 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | results/classifier/108/other/1193564 | 23 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | results/classifier/108/other/1193628 | 103 |
5 files changed, 1323 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/results/classifier/108/other/1193 b/results/classifier/108/other/1193 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..59f297e3d --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/108/other/1193 @@ -0,0 +1,31 @@ +device: 0.901 +debug: 0.877 +boot: 0.875 +files: 0.843 +PID: 0.810 +performance: 0.800 +socket: 0.784 +vnc: 0.781 +network: 0.759 +graphic: 0.740 +semantic: 0.738 +permissions: 0.290 +KVM: 0.271 +other: 0.264 + +io_uring / iothread regression 7.1.0 +Description of problem: +After upgrading to 7.1.0, some of my libvirt VM's failed to boot. I have narrowed down the issue to the combination of: + +- io_uring +- iothread +Steps to reproduce: +1. set up a VM with iothread and io_uring +2. try to boot and watch it "hang" +Additional information: +Here's the relevant command line from the libvirt log: +``` +-blockdev '{"driver":"file","filename":"/mnt/data/VMs/Arch-Linux-x86_64-basic.qcow2","aio":"io_uring","node-name":"libvirt-1-storage","auto-read-only":true,"discard":"unmap"}' \ +-blockdev '{"node-name":"libvirt-1-format","read-only":false,"driver":"qcow2","file":"libvirt-1-storage","backing":null}' \ +-device '{"driver":"virtio-blk-pci","iothread":"iothread1","bus":"pci.4","addr":"0x0","drive":"libvirt-1-format","id":"virtio-disk0","bootindex":1 }' \ +``` diff --git a/results/classifier/108/other/11933524 b/results/classifier/108/other/11933524 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..c8313c023 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/108/other/11933524 @@ -0,0 +1,1135 @@ +PID: 0.791 +other: 0.771 +device: 0.762 +permissions: 0.752 +debug: 0.752 +socket: 0.751 +boot: 0.743 +graphic: 0.737 +performance: 0.736 +vnc: 0.695 +KVM: 0.689 +semantic: 0.673 +network: 0.662 +files: 0.660 + +[BUG] hw/i386/pc.c: CXL Fixed Memory Window should not reserve e820 in bios + +Early-boot e820 records will be inserted by the bios/efi/early boot +software and be reported to the kernel via insert_resource. Later, when +CXL drivers iterate through the regions again, they will insert another +resource and make the RESERVED memory area a child. + +This RESERVED memory area causes the memory region to become unusable, +and as a result attempting to create memory regions with + + `cxl create-region ...` + +Will fail due to the RESERVED area intersecting with the CXL window. + + +During boot the following traceback is observed: + +0xffffffff81101650 in insert_resource_expand_to_fit () +0xffffffff83d964c5 in e820__reserve_resources_late () +0xffffffff83e03210 in pcibios_resource_survey () +0xffffffff83e04f4a in pcibios_init () + +Which produces a call to reserve the CFMWS area: + +(gdb) p *new +$54 = {start = 0x290000000, end = 0x2cfffffff, name = "Reserved", + flags = 0x200, desc = 0x7, parent = 0x0, sibling = 0x0, + child = 0x0} + +Later the Kernel parses ACPI tables and reserves the exact same area as +the CXL Fixed Memory Window. The use of `insert_resource_conflict` +retains the RESERVED region and makes it a child of the new region. + +0xffffffff811016a4 in insert_resource_conflict () + insert_resource () +0xffffffff81a81389 in cxl_parse_cfmws () +0xffffffff818c4a81 in call_handler () + acpi_parse_entries_array () + +(gdb) p/x *new +$59 = {start = 0x290000000, end = 0x2cfffffff, name = "CXL Window 0", + flags = 0x200, desc = 0x0, parent = 0x0, sibling = 0x0, + child = 0x0} + +This produces the following output in /proc/iomem: + +590000000-68fffffff : CXL Window 0 + 590000000-68fffffff : Reserved + +This reserved area causes `get_free_mem_region()` to fail due to a check +against `__region_intersects()`. Due to this reserved area, the +intersect check will only ever return REGION_INTERSECTS, which causes +`cxl create-region` to always fail. + +Signed-off-by: Gregory Price <gregory.price@memverge.com> +--- + hw/i386/pc.c | 2 -- + 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) + +diff --git a/hw/i386/pc.c b/hw/i386/pc.c +index 566accf7e6..5bf5465a21 100644 +--- a/hw/i386/pc.c ++++ b/hw/i386/pc.c +@@ -1061,7 +1061,6 @@ void pc_memory_init(PCMachineState *pcms, + hwaddr cxl_size = MiB; + + cxl_base = pc_get_cxl_range_start(pcms); +- e820_add_entry(cxl_base, cxl_size, E820_RESERVED); + memory_region_init(mr, OBJECT(machine), "cxl_host_reg", cxl_size); + memory_region_add_subregion(system_memory, cxl_base, mr); + cxl_resv_end = cxl_base + cxl_size; +@@ -1077,7 +1076,6 @@ void pc_memory_init(PCMachineState *pcms, + memory_region_init_io(&fw->mr, OBJECT(machine), &cfmws_ops, fw, + "cxl-fixed-memory-region", fw->size); + memory_region_add_subregion(system_memory, fw->base, &fw->mr); +- e820_add_entry(fw->base, fw->size, E820_RESERVED); + cxl_fmw_base += fw->size; + cxl_resv_end = cxl_fmw_base; + } +-- +2.37.3 + +Early-boot e820 records will be inserted by the bios/efi/early boot +software and be reported to the kernel via insert_resource. Later, when +CXL drivers iterate through the regions again, they will insert another +resource and make the RESERVED memory area a child. + +This RESERVED memory area causes the memory region to become unusable, +and as a result attempting to create memory regions with + + `cxl create-region ...` + +Will fail due to the RESERVED area intersecting with the CXL window. + + +During boot the following traceback is observed: + +0xffffffff81101650 in insert_resource_expand_to_fit () +0xffffffff83d964c5 in e820__reserve_resources_late () +0xffffffff83e03210 in pcibios_resource_survey () +0xffffffff83e04f4a in pcibios_init () + +Which produces a call to reserve the CFMWS area: + +(gdb) p *new +$54 = {start = 0x290000000, end = 0x2cfffffff, name = "Reserved", + flags = 0x200, desc = 0x7, parent = 0x0, sibling = 0x0, + child = 0x0} + +Later the Kernel parses ACPI tables and reserves the exact same area as +the CXL Fixed Memory Window. The use of `insert_resource_conflict` +retains the RESERVED region and makes it a child of the new region. + +0xffffffff811016a4 in insert_resource_conflict () + insert_resource () +0xffffffff81a81389 in cxl_parse_cfmws () +0xffffffff818c4a81 in call_handler () + acpi_parse_entries_array () + +(gdb) p/x *new +$59 = {start = 0x290000000, end = 0x2cfffffff, name = "CXL Window 0", + flags = 0x200, desc = 0x0, parent = 0x0, sibling = 0x0, + child = 0x0} + +This produces the following output in /proc/iomem: + +590000000-68fffffff : CXL Window 0 + 590000000-68fffffff : Reserved + +This reserved area causes `get_free_mem_region()` to fail due to a check +against `__region_intersects()`. Due to this reserved area, the +intersect check will only ever return REGION_INTERSECTS, which causes +`cxl create-region` to always fail. + +Signed-off-by: Gregory Price <gregory.price@memverge.com> +--- + hw/i386/pc.c | 2 -- + 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) + +diff --git a/hw/i386/pc.c b/hw/i386/pc.c +index 566accf7e6..5bf5465a21 100644 +--- a/hw/i386/pc.c ++++ b/hw/i386/pc.c +@@ -1061,7 +1061,6 @@ void pc_memory_init(PCMachineState *pcms, + hwaddr cxl_size = MiB; +cxl_base = pc_get_cxl_range_start(pcms); +- e820_add_entry(cxl_base, cxl_size, E820_RESERVED); + memory_region_init(mr, OBJECT(machine), "cxl_host_reg", cxl_size); + memory_region_add_subregion(system_memory, cxl_base, mr); + cxl_resv_end = cxl_base + cxl_size; +@@ -1077,7 +1076,6 @@ void pc_memory_init(PCMachineState *pcms, + memory_region_init_io(&fw->mr, OBJECT(machine), &cfmws_ops, +fw, + "cxl-fixed-memory-region", fw->size); + memory_region_add_subregion(system_memory, fw->base, &fw->mr); +Or will this be subregion of cxl_base? + +Thanks, +Pankaj +- e820_add_entry(fw->base, fw->size, E820_RESERVED); + cxl_fmw_base += fw->size; + cxl_resv_end = cxl_fmw_base; + } + +> +> - e820_add_entry(cxl_base, cxl_size, E820_RESERVED); +> +> memory_region_init(mr, OBJECT(machine), "cxl_host_reg", cxl_size); +> +> memory_region_add_subregion(system_memory, cxl_base, mr); +> +> cxl_resv_end = cxl_base + cxl_size; +> +> @@ -1077,7 +1076,6 @@ void pc_memory_init(PCMachineState *pcms, +> +> memory_region_init_io(&fw->mr, OBJECT(machine), +> +> &cfmws_ops, fw, +> +> "cxl-fixed-memory-region", +> +> fw->size); +> +> memory_region_add_subregion(system_memory, fw->base, +> +> &fw->mr); +> +> +Or will this be subregion of cxl_base? +> +> +Thanks, +> +Pankaj +The memory region backing this memory area still has to be initialized +and added in the QEMU system, but it will now be initialized for use by +linux after PCI/ACPI setup occurs and the CXL driver discovers it via +CDAT. + +It's also still possible to assign this area a static memory region at +bool by setting up the SRATs in the ACPI tables, but that patch is not +upstream yet. + +On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 5:14 AM Gregory Price <gourry.memverge@gmail.com> wrote: +> +> +Early-boot e820 records will be inserted by the bios/efi/early boot +> +software and be reported to the kernel via insert_resource. Later, when +> +CXL drivers iterate through the regions again, they will insert another +> +resource and make the RESERVED memory area a child. +I have already sent a patch +https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg882012.html +. +When the patch is applied, there would not be any reserved entries +even with passing E820_RESERVED . +So this patch needs to be evaluated in the light of the above patch I +sent. Once you apply my patch, does the issue still exist? + +> +> +This RESERVED memory area causes the memory region to become unusable, +> +and as a result attempting to create memory regions with +> +> +`cxl create-region ...` +> +> +Will fail due to the RESERVED area intersecting with the CXL window. +> +> +> +During boot the following traceback is observed: +> +> +0xffffffff81101650 in insert_resource_expand_to_fit () +> +0xffffffff83d964c5 in e820__reserve_resources_late () +> +0xffffffff83e03210 in pcibios_resource_survey () +> +0xffffffff83e04f4a in pcibios_init () +> +> +Which produces a call to reserve the CFMWS area: +> +> +(gdb) p *new +> +$54 = {start = 0x290000000, end = 0x2cfffffff, name = "Reserved", +> +flags = 0x200, desc = 0x7, parent = 0x0, sibling = 0x0, +> +child = 0x0} +> +> +Later the Kernel parses ACPI tables and reserves the exact same area as +> +the CXL Fixed Memory Window. The use of `insert_resource_conflict` +> +retains the RESERVED region and makes it a child of the new region. +> +> +0xffffffff811016a4 in insert_resource_conflict () +> +insert_resource () +> +0xffffffff81a81389 in cxl_parse_cfmws () +> +0xffffffff818c4a81 in call_handler () +> +acpi_parse_entries_array () +> +> +(gdb) p/x *new +> +$59 = {start = 0x290000000, end = 0x2cfffffff, name = "CXL Window 0", +> +flags = 0x200, desc = 0x0, parent = 0x0, sibling = 0x0, +> +child = 0x0} +> +> +This produces the following output in /proc/iomem: +> +> +590000000-68fffffff : CXL Window 0 +> +590000000-68fffffff : Reserved +> +> +This reserved area causes `get_free_mem_region()` to fail due to a check +> +against `__region_intersects()`. Due to this reserved area, the +> +intersect check will only ever return REGION_INTERSECTS, which causes +> +`cxl create-region` to always fail. +> +> +Signed-off-by: Gregory Price <gregory.price@memverge.com> +> +--- +> +hw/i386/pc.c | 2 -- +> +1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) +> +> +diff --git a/hw/i386/pc.c b/hw/i386/pc.c +> +index 566accf7e6..5bf5465a21 100644 +> +--- a/hw/i386/pc.c +> ++++ b/hw/i386/pc.c +> +@@ -1061,7 +1061,6 @@ void pc_memory_init(PCMachineState *pcms, +> +hwaddr cxl_size = MiB; +> +> +cxl_base = pc_get_cxl_range_start(pcms); +> +- e820_add_entry(cxl_base, cxl_size, E820_RESERVED); +> +memory_region_init(mr, OBJECT(machine), "cxl_host_reg", cxl_size); +> +memory_region_add_subregion(system_memory, cxl_base, mr); +> +cxl_resv_end = cxl_base + cxl_size; +> +@@ -1077,7 +1076,6 @@ void pc_memory_init(PCMachineState *pcms, +> +memory_region_init_io(&fw->mr, OBJECT(machine), &cfmws_ops, +> +fw, +> +"cxl-fixed-memory-region", fw->size); +> +memory_region_add_subregion(system_memory, fw->base, +> +&fw->mr); +> +- e820_add_entry(fw->base, fw->size, E820_RESERVED); +> +cxl_fmw_base += fw->size; +> +cxl_resv_end = cxl_fmw_base; +> +} +> +-- +> +2.37.3 +> + +This patch does not resolve the issue, reserved entries are still created. +[  0.000000] BIOS-e820: [mem 0x0000000280000000-0x00000002800fffff] reserved +[  0.000000] BIOS-e820: [mem 0x0000000290000000-0x000000029fffffff] reserved +# cat /proc/iomem +290000000-29fffffff : CXL Window 0 + 290000000-29fffffff : Reserved +# cxl create-region -m -d decoder0.0 -w 1 -g 256 mem0 +cxl region: create_region: region0: set_size failed: Numerical result out of range +cxl region: cmd_create_region: created 0 regions +On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 2:05 AM Ani Sinha < +ani@anisinha.ca +> wrote: +On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 5:14 AM Gregory Price < +gourry.memverge@gmail.com +> wrote: +> +> Early-boot e820 records will be inserted by the bios/efi/early boot +> software and be reported to the kernel via insert_resource. Later, when +> CXL drivers iterate through the regions again, they will insert another +> resource and make the RESERVED memory area a child. +I have already sent a patch +https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg882012.html +. +When the patch is applied, there would not be any reserved entries +even with passing E820_RESERVED . +So this patch needs to be evaluated in the light of the above patch I +sent. Once you apply my patch, does the issue still exist? +> +> This RESERVED memory area causes the memory region to become unusable, +> and as a result attempting to create memory regions with +> +>   `cxl create-region ...` +> +> Will fail due to the RESERVED area intersecting with the CXL window. +> +> +> During boot the following traceback is observed: +> +> 0xffffffff81101650 in insert_resource_expand_to_fit () +> 0xffffffff83d964c5 in e820__reserve_resources_late () +> 0xffffffff83e03210 in pcibios_resource_survey () +> 0xffffffff83e04f4a in pcibios_init () +> +> Which produces a call to reserve the CFMWS area: +> +> (gdb) p *new +> $54 = {start = 0x290000000, end = 0x2cfffffff, name = "Reserved", +>    flags = 0x200, desc = 0x7, parent = 0x0, sibling = 0x0, +>    child = 0x0} +> +> Later the Kernel parses ACPI tables and reserves the exact same area as +> the CXL Fixed Memory Window. The use of `insert_resource_conflict` +> retains the RESERVED region and makes it a child of the new region. +> +> 0xffffffff811016a4 in insert_resource_conflict () +>            insert_resource () +> 0xffffffff81a81389 in cxl_parse_cfmws () +> 0xffffffff818c4a81 in call_handler () +>            acpi_parse_entries_array () +> +> (gdb) p/x *new +> $59 = {start = 0x290000000, end = 0x2cfffffff, name = "CXL Window 0", +>    flags = 0x200, desc = 0x0, parent = 0x0, sibling = 0x0, +>    child = 0x0} +> +> This produces the following output in /proc/iomem: +> +> 590000000-68fffffff : CXL Window 0 +>  590000000-68fffffff : Reserved +> +> This reserved area causes `get_free_mem_region()` to fail due to a check +> against `__region_intersects()`. Due to this reserved area, the +> intersect check will only ever return REGION_INTERSECTS, which causes +> `cxl create-region` to always fail. +> +> Signed-off-by: Gregory Price < +gregory.price@memverge.com +> +> --- +> hw/i386/pc.c | 2 -- +> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) +> +> diff --git a/hw/i386/pc.c b/hw/i386/pc.c +> index 566accf7e6..5bf5465a21 100644 +> --- a/hw/i386/pc.c +> +++ b/hw/i386/pc.c +> @@ -1061,7 +1061,6 @@ void pc_memory_init(PCMachineState *pcms, +>     hwaddr cxl_size = MiB; +> +>     cxl_base = pc_get_cxl_range_start(pcms); +> -    e820_add_entry(cxl_base, cxl_size, E820_RESERVED); +>     memory_region_init(mr, OBJECT(machine), "cxl_host_reg", cxl_size); +>     memory_region_add_subregion(system_memory, cxl_base, mr); +>     cxl_resv_end = cxl_base + cxl_size; +> @@ -1077,7 +1076,6 @@ void pc_memory_init(PCMachineState *pcms, +>         memory_region_init_io(&fw->mr, OBJECT(machine), &cfmws_ops, fw, +>                    "cxl-fixed-memory-region", fw->size); +>         memory_region_add_subregion(system_memory, fw->base, &fw->mr); +> -        e820_add_entry(fw->base, fw->size, E820_RESERVED); +>         cxl_fmw_base += fw->size; +>         cxl_resv_end = cxl_fmw_base; +>       } +> -- +> 2.37.3 +> + ++Gerd Hoffmann + +On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 8:16 PM Gregory Price <gourry.memverge@gmail.com> wrote: +> +> +This patch does not resolve the issue, reserved entries are still created. +> +> +[ 0.000000] BIOS-e820: [mem 0x0000000280000000-0x00000002800fffff] reserved +> +[ 0.000000] BIOS-e820: [mem 0x0000000290000000-0x000000029fffffff] reserved +> +> +# cat /proc/iomem +> +290000000-29fffffff : CXL Window 0 +> +290000000-29fffffff : Reserved +> +> +# cxl create-region -m -d decoder0.0 -w 1 -g 256 mem0 +> +cxl region: create_region: region0: set_size failed: Numerical result out of +> +range +> +cxl region: cmd_create_region: created 0 regions +> +> +On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 2:05 AM Ani Sinha <ani@anisinha.ca> wrote: +> +> +> +> On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 5:14 AM Gregory Price <gourry.memverge@gmail.com> +> +> wrote: +> +> > +> +> > Early-boot e820 records will be inserted by the bios/efi/early boot +> +> > software and be reported to the kernel via insert_resource. Later, when +> +> > CXL drivers iterate through the regions again, they will insert another +> +> > resource and make the RESERVED memory area a child. +> +> +> +> I have already sent a patch +> +> +https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg882012.html +. +> +> When the patch is applied, there would not be any reserved entries +> +> even with passing E820_RESERVED . +> +> So this patch needs to be evaluated in the light of the above patch I +> +> sent. Once you apply my patch, does the issue still exist? +> +> +> +> > +> +> > This RESERVED memory area causes the memory region to become unusable, +> +> > and as a result attempting to create memory regions with +> +> > +> +> > `cxl create-region ...` +> +> > +> +> > Will fail due to the RESERVED area intersecting with the CXL window. +> +> > +> +> > +> +> > During boot the following traceback is observed: +> +> > +> +> > 0xffffffff81101650 in insert_resource_expand_to_fit () +> +> > 0xffffffff83d964c5 in e820__reserve_resources_late () +> +> > 0xffffffff83e03210 in pcibios_resource_survey () +> +> > 0xffffffff83e04f4a in pcibios_init () +> +> > +> +> > Which produces a call to reserve the CFMWS area: +> +> > +> +> > (gdb) p *new +> +> > $54 = {start = 0x290000000, end = 0x2cfffffff, name = "Reserved", +> +> > flags = 0x200, desc = 0x7, parent = 0x0, sibling = 0x0, +> +> > child = 0x0} +> +> > +> +> > Later the Kernel parses ACPI tables and reserves the exact same area as +> +> > the CXL Fixed Memory Window. The use of `insert_resource_conflict` +> +> > retains the RESERVED region and makes it a child of the new region. +> +> > +> +> > 0xffffffff811016a4 in insert_resource_conflict () +> +> > insert_resource () +> +> > 0xffffffff81a81389 in cxl_parse_cfmws () +> +> > 0xffffffff818c4a81 in call_handler () +> +> > acpi_parse_entries_array () +> +> > +> +> > (gdb) p/x *new +> +> > $59 = {start = 0x290000000, end = 0x2cfffffff, name = "CXL Window 0", +> +> > flags = 0x200, desc = 0x0, parent = 0x0, sibling = 0x0, +> +> > child = 0x0} +> +> > +> +> > This produces the following output in /proc/iomem: +> +> > +> +> > 590000000-68fffffff : CXL Window 0 +> +> > 590000000-68fffffff : Reserved +> +> > +> +> > This reserved area causes `get_free_mem_region()` to fail due to a check +> +> > against `__region_intersects()`. Due to this reserved area, the +> +> > intersect check will only ever return REGION_INTERSECTS, which causes +> +> > `cxl create-region` to always fail. +> +> > +> +> > Signed-off-by: Gregory Price <gregory.price@memverge.com> +> +> > --- +> +> > hw/i386/pc.c | 2 -- +> +> > 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) +> +> > +> +> > diff --git a/hw/i386/pc.c b/hw/i386/pc.c +> +> > index 566accf7e6..5bf5465a21 100644 +> +> > --- a/hw/i386/pc.c +> +> > +++ b/hw/i386/pc.c +> +> > @@ -1061,7 +1061,6 @@ void pc_memory_init(PCMachineState *pcms, +> +> > hwaddr cxl_size = MiB; +> +> > +> +> > cxl_base = pc_get_cxl_range_start(pcms); +> +> > - e820_add_entry(cxl_base, cxl_size, E820_RESERVED); +> +> > memory_region_init(mr, OBJECT(machine), "cxl_host_reg", cxl_size); +> +> > memory_region_add_subregion(system_memory, cxl_base, mr); +> +> > cxl_resv_end = cxl_base + cxl_size; +> +> > @@ -1077,7 +1076,6 @@ void pc_memory_init(PCMachineState *pcms, +> +> > memory_region_init_io(&fw->mr, OBJECT(machine), +> +> > &cfmws_ops, fw, +> +> > "cxl-fixed-memory-region", +> +> > fw->size); +> +> > memory_region_add_subregion(system_memory, fw->base, +> +> > &fw->mr); +> +> > - e820_add_entry(fw->base, fw->size, E820_RESERVED); +> +> > cxl_fmw_base += fw->size; +> +> > cxl_resv_end = cxl_fmw_base; +> +> > } +> +> > -- +> +> > 2.37.3 +> +> > + +> +>> > diff --git a/hw/i386/pc.c b/hw/i386/pc.c +> +>> > index 566accf7e6..5bf5465a21 100644 +> +>> > --- a/hw/i386/pc.c +> +>> > +++ b/hw/i386/pc.c +> +>> > @@ -1061,7 +1061,6 @@ void pc_memory_init(PCMachineState *pcms, +> +>> > hwaddr cxl_size = MiB; +> +>> > +> +>> > cxl_base = pc_get_cxl_range_start(pcms); +> +>> > - e820_add_entry(cxl_base, cxl_size, E820_RESERVED); +Just dropping it doesn't look like a good plan to me. + +You can try set etc/reserved-memory-end fw_cfg file instead. Firmware +(both seabios and ovmf) read it and will make sure the 64bit pci mmio +window is placed above that address, i.e. this effectively reserves +address space. Right now used by memory hotplug code, but should work +for cxl too I think (disclaimer: don't know much about cxl ...). + +take care & HTH, + Gerd + +On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 12:21:11 +0100 +Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com> wrote: + +> +> >> > diff --git a/hw/i386/pc.c b/hw/i386/pc.c +> +> >> > index 566accf7e6..5bf5465a21 100644 +> +> >> > --- a/hw/i386/pc.c +> +> >> > +++ b/hw/i386/pc.c +> +> >> > @@ -1061,7 +1061,6 @@ void pc_memory_init(PCMachineState *pcms, +> +> >> > hwaddr cxl_size = MiB; +> +> >> > +> +> >> > cxl_base = pc_get_cxl_range_start(pcms); +> +> >> > - e820_add_entry(cxl_base, cxl_size, E820_RESERVED); +> +> +Just dropping it doesn't look like a good plan to me. +> +> +You can try set etc/reserved-memory-end fw_cfg file instead. Firmware +> +(both seabios and ovmf) read it and will make sure the 64bit pci mmio +> +window is placed above that address, i.e. this effectively reserves +> +address space. Right now used by memory hotplug code, but should work +> +for cxl too I think (disclaimer: don't know much about cxl ...). +As far as I know CXL impl. in QEMU isn't using etc/reserved-memory-end +at all, it' has its own mapping. + +Regardless of that, reserved E820 entries look wrong, and looking at +commit message OS is right to bailout on them (expected according +to ACPI spec). +Also spec says + +" +E820 Assumptions and Limitations + [...] + The platform boot firmware does not return a range description for the memory +mapping of + PCI devices, ISA Option ROMs, and ISA Plug and Play cards because the OS has +mechanisms + available to detect them. +" + +so dropping reserved entries looks reasonable from ACPI spec point of view. +(disclaimer: don't know much about cxl ... either) +> +> +take care & HTH, +> +Gerd +> + +On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 11:51:23AM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote: +> +On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 12:21:11 +0100 +> +Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com> wrote: +> +> +> > >> > diff --git a/hw/i386/pc.c b/hw/i386/pc.c +> +> > >> > index 566accf7e6..5bf5465a21 100644 +> +> > >> > --- a/hw/i386/pc.c +> +> > >> > +++ b/hw/i386/pc.c +> +> > >> > @@ -1061,7 +1061,6 @@ void pc_memory_init(PCMachineState *pcms, +> +> > >> > hwaddr cxl_size = MiB; +> +> > >> > +> +> > >> > cxl_base = pc_get_cxl_range_start(pcms); +> +> > >> > - e820_add_entry(cxl_base, cxl_size, E820_RESERVED); +> +> +> +> Just dropping it doesn't look like a good plan to me. +> +> +> +> You can try set etc/reserved-memory-end fw_cfg file instead. Firmware +> +> (both seabios and ovmf) read it and will make sure the 64bit pci mmio +> +> window is placed above that address, i.e. this effectively reserves +> +> address space. Right now used by memory hotplug code, but should work +> +> for cxl too I think (disclaimer: don't know much about cxl ...). +> +> +As far as I know CXL impl. in QEMU isn't using etc/reserved-memory-end +> +at all, it' has its own mapping. +This should be changed. cxl should make sure the highest address used +is stored in etc/reserved-memory-end to avoid the firmware mapping pci +resources there. + +> +so dropping reserved entries looks reasonable from ACPI spec point of view. +Yep, I don't want dispute that. + +I suspect the reason for these entries to exist in the first place is to +inform the firmware that it should not place stuff there, and if we +remove that to conform with the spec we need some alternative way for +that ... + +take care, + Gerd + +On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 12:40:59 +0100 +Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com> wrote: + +> +On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 11:51:23AM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote: +> +> On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 12:21:11 +0100 +> +> Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com> wrote: +> +> +> +> > > >> > diff --git a/hw/i386/pc.c b/hw/i386/pc.c +> +> > > >> > index 566accf7e6..5bf5465a21 100644 +> +> > > >> > --- a/hw/i386/pc.c +> +> > > >> > +++ b/hw/i386/pc.c +> +> > > >> > @@ -1061,7 +1061,6 @@ void pc_memory_init(PCMachineState *pcms, +> +> > > >> > hwaddr cxl_size = MiB; +> +> > > >> > +> +> > > >> > cxl_base = pc_get_cxl_range_start(pcms); +> +> > > >> > - e820_add_entry(cxl_base, cxl_size, E820_RESERVED); +> +> > +> +> > Just dropping it doesn't look like a good plan to me. +> +> > +> +> > You can try set etc/reserved-memory-end fw_cfg file instead. Firmware +> +> > (both seabios and ovmf) read it and will make sure the 64bit pci mmio +> +> > window is placed above that address, i.e. this effectively reserves +> +> > address space. Right now used by memory hotplug code, but should work +> +> > for cxl too I think (disclaimer: don't know much about cxl ...). +> +> +> +> As far as I know CXL impl. in QEMU isn't using etc/reserved-memory-end +> +> at all, it' has its own mapping. +> +> +This should be changed. cxl should make sure the highest address used +> +is stored in etc/reserved-memory-end to avoid the firmware mapping pci +> +resources there. +if (pcmc->has_reserved_memory && machine->device_memory->base) { + +[...] + + if (pcms->cxl_devices_state.is_enabled) { + + res_mem_end = cxl_resv_end; + +that should be handled by this line + + } + + *val = cpu_to_le64(ROUND_UP(res_mem_end, 1 * GiB)); + + fw_cfg_add_file(fw_cfg, "etc/reserved-memory-end", val, sizeof(*val)); + + } + +so SeaBIOS shouldn't intrude into CXL address space +(I assume EDK2 behave similarly here) + +> +> so dropping reserved entries looks reasonable from ACPI spec point of view. +> +> +> +> +Yep, I don't want dispute that. +> +> +I suspect the reason for these entries to exist in the first place is to +> +inform the firmware that it should not place stuff there, and if we +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ +just to educate me, can you point out what SeaBIOS code does with reservations. + +> +remove that to conform with the spec we need some alternative way for +> +that ... +with etc/reserved-memory-end set as above, +is E820_RESERVED really needed here? + +(my understanding was that E820_RESERVED weren't accounted for when +initializing PCI devices) + +> +> +take care, +> +Gerd +> + +> +if (pcmc->has_reserved_memory && machine->device_memory->base) { +> +> +[...] +> +> +if (pcms->cxl_devices_state.is_enabled) { +> +> +res_mem_end = cxl_resv_end; +> +> +that should be handled by this line +> +> +} +> +> +*val = cpu_to_le64(ROUND_UP(res_mem_end, 1 * GiB)); +> +> +fw_cfg_add_file(fw_cfg, "etc/reserved-memory-end", val, +> +sizeof(*val)); +> +} +> +> +so SeaBIOS shouldn't intrude into CXL address space +Yes, looks good, so with this in place already everyting should be fine. + +> +(I assume EDK2 behave similarly here) +Correct, ovmf reads that fw_cfg file too. + +> +> I suspect the reason for these entries to exist in the first place is to +> +> inform the firmware that it should not place stuff there, and if we +> +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ +> +just to educate me, can you point out what SeaBIOS code does with +> +reservations. +They are added to the e820 map which gets passed on to the OS. seabios +uses (and updateas) the e820 map too, when allocating memory for +example. While thinking about it I'm not fully sure it actually looks +at reservations, maybe it only uses (and updates) ram entries when +allocating memory. + +> +> remove that to conform with the spec we need some alternative way for +> +> that ... +> +> +with etc/reserved-memory-end set as above, +> +is E820_RESERVED really needed here? +No. Setting etc/reserved-memory-end is enough. + +So for the original patch: +Acked-by: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com> + +take care, + Gerd + +On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 02:36:02PM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: +> +> if (pcmc->has_reserved_memory && machine->device_memory->base) { +> +> +> +> [...] +> +> +> +> if (pcms->cxl_devices_state.is_enabled) { +> +> +> +> res_mem_end = cxl_resv_end; +> +> +> +> that should be handled by this line +> +> +> +> } +> +> +> +> *val = cpu_to_le64(ROUND_UP(res_mem_end, 1 * GiB)); +> +> +> +> fw_cfg_add_file(fw_cfg, "etc/reserved-memory-end", val, +> +> sizeof(*val)); +> +> } +> +> +> +> so SeaBIOS shouldn't intrude into CXL address space +> +> +Yes, looks good, so with this in place already everyting should be fine. +> +> +> (I assume EDK2 behave similarly here) +> +> +Correct, ovmf reads that fw_cfg file too. +> +> +> > I suspect the reason for these entries to exist in the first place is to +> +> > inform the firmware that it should not place stuff there, and if we +> +> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ +> +> just to educate me, can you point out what SeaBIOS code does with +> +> reservations. +> +> +They are added to the e820 map which gets passed on to the OS. seabios +> +uses (and updateas) the e820 map too, when allocating memory for +> +example. While thinking about it I'm not fully sure it actually looks +> +at reservations, maybe it only uses (and updates) ram entries when +> +allocating memory. +> +> +> > remove that to conform with the spec we need some alternative way for +> +> > that ... +> +> +> +> with etc/reserved-memory-end set as above, +> +> is E820_RESERVED really needed here? +> +> +No. Setting etc/reserved-memory-end is enough. +> +> +So for the original patch: +> +Acked-by: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com> +> +> +take care, +> +Gerd +It's upstream already, sorry I can't add your tag. + +-- +MST + diff --git a/results/classifier/108/other/1193555 b/results/classifier/108/other/1193555 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..68df78767 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/108/other/1193555 @@ -0,0 +1,31 @@ +graphic: 0.779 +KVM: 0.753 +device: 0.749 +socket: 0.682 +network: 0.650 +semantic: 0.637 +vnc: 0.544 +PID: 0.481 +other: 0.425 +debug: 0.364 +performance: 0.355 +files: 0.330 +boot: 0.320 +permissions: 0.180 + +Add scale options to window menu + +This is a workaround against bug #504368, which makes QEMU window text blurry if resized. This is a common and annoying problem: + +http://butnottoohard.blogspot.com/2010/01/qemukvm-windows-7-blurry-text.html +http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/60564/how-can-i-restore-default-window-size-in-kvm-qemu + + +The ability to resize window is a feature - it allows to adjust viewport of QEMU to the convenient working area. But there should be an option to restore the size of the window or scale it like 1:2, 2:1 etc. I don't know about if that should be exposed to QEMU monitor as some "window <command>" set , but it would be extremely convenient to provide at least Ctrl+Alt+U functionality through window level menu. + +Ubuntu 13.04, QEMU 1.4.0 + +Looking through old bug tickets... is this still an issue with the latest version of QEMU? Or could we close this ticket nowadays? + +[Expired for QEMU because there has been no activity for 60 days.] + diff --git a/results/classifier/108/other/1193564 b/results/classifier/108/other/1193564 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..0a96a3a55 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/108/other/1193564 @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ +device: 0.797 +graphic: 0.768 +other: 0.709 +semantic: 0.598 +vnc: 0.427 +performance: 0.416 +network: 0.416 +boot: 0.376 +KVM: 0.330 +socket: 0.316 +debug: 0.229 +PID: 0.133 +files: 0.116 +permissions: 0.065 + +monitor: rename `screendump` command to `screenshot` + +`screendump` is hard to memorize for occasional users. It is easier to remember `screenshot` name. + +It would also be nice if monitor appended extension automatically if not set. + +The monitor has TAB completion, so you should get the right command if you type "screen" + TAB. And since it's been quite a while since this ticket has been opened and nobody took care of this, I think it's quite unlikely that the name of the command gets changed, so closing this ticket now as "Won't fix" - sorry! + diff --git a/results/classifier/108/other/1193628 b/results/classifier/108/other/1193628 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..bd674494a --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/108/other/1193628 @@ -0,0 +1,103 @@ +other: 0.817 +debug: 0.806 +semantic: 0.804 +permissions: 0.785 +graphic: 0.765 +device: 0.765 +performance: 0.724 +files: 0.703 +PID: 0.695 +socket: 0.622 +network: 0.607 +KVM: 0.592 +vnc: 0.590 +boot: 0.571 + +Undefined References + +I've been able to make qemu on ubuntu 13.04 for all last releases: 1.4.0 -> 1.5.0 + +Unfortunately, when I launch one of them with a Cisco ASA, it crashes inside GNS3 (latest release) for Ubuntu. +The top GNS3 developer told me they experienced similar results and advised me to use qemu 1.1.0. + +The problem is that I cannot link that version. I always have these errors: + +"LINK qemu-ga +qemu-timer.o: In function `dynticks_rearm_timer': +/home/actionmystique/Downloads/qemu-1.1.0/qemu-timer.c:538: undefined reference to `timer_gettime' +/home/actionmystique/Downloads/qemu-1.1.0/qemu-timer.c:551: undefined reference to `timer_settime' +qemu-timer.o: In function `dynticks_stop_timer': +/home/actionmystique/Downloads/qemu-1.1.0/qemu-timer.c:524: undefined reference to `timer_delete' +qemu-timer.o: In function `dynticks_start_timer': +/home/actionmystique/Downloads/qemu-1.1.0/qemu-timer.c:510: undefined reference to `timer_create' +collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status +make: *** [qemu-ga] Error 1" + +The man pages say we need to link with '-lrt' option, but I could not find it in the Makefile. +I do not know how to correct this issue. + +As you note, 1.1 is now pretty old; you will be much better off in the long run investigating why your guest OS doesn't work under current QEMU. + + +This is a change in glibc. Since version 2.17, clock_gettime() and friends were moved from -lrt to the main libc, so for linking with clock_gettime(), -lrt isn't needed anymore. + +However, (old) qemu configure only checked clock_gettime(), and used other functions like timer_create() &Co above. + +There was a patch: + +commit 8bacde8d86a09699207d85d4bab06162aed18dc4 +Author: Natanael Copa <email address hidden> +Date: Wed Sep 12 09:06:51 2012 +0000 + + configure: properly check if -lrt and -lm is needed + + Fixes build against uClibc. + + uClibc provides 2 versions of clock_gettime(), one with realtime + support and one without (this is so you can avoid linking in -lrt + unless actually needed). This means that the clock_gettime() don't + need -lrt. We still need it for timer_create() so we check for this + function in addition. + + We also need check if -lm is needed for isnan(). + + Both -lm and -lrt are needed for libs_qga. + +which was applied past qemu-1.2, so 1.4 and 1.5 versions have it, and _should_ work fine. + +Thanks, + +/mjt + +@Peter Maydell (pmaydell): you're right, but in the meantime, I needed to find another solution. + +@Michael Tokarev (mjt+launchpad-tls): Thanks a lot for your answer, it helped me pass this hindrance... to find 2 other obstacles. + +Regarding the first one: I patched the two files as recommended (and added comments to the third one). There's a confusing thing though: the displayed "configure" file is very different from the one which is distributed with the 1.1.0 release, so the line numbers are not correct. +The patch needs to be done from line #2569, instead of #2673. + +Anyway, I was able to continue making qemu until this error: +" LINK lm32-softmmu/qemu-system-lm32 +/usr/bin/ld: milkymist-tmu2.o: undefined reference to symbol 'XFree' +/usr/bin/ld: note: 'XFree' is defined in DSO /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libX11.so.6 so try adding it to the linker command line +/usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libX11.so.6: could not read symbols: Invalid operation +collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status +make[1]: *** [qemu-system-lm32] Error 1 +make: *** [subdir-lm32-softmmu] Error 2" + +I had to apply another patch to "configure" from here: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/193007 + +Then I ran into another issue: +" CC cris-linux-user/signal.o +/home/actionmystique/Downloads/qemu-1.1.0/linux-user/signal.c:3479:24: error: field ‘info’ has incomplete type +make[1]: *** [signal.o] Error 1 +make: *** [subdir-cris-linux-user] Error 2" + +This was solved with a last patch on "linux-user/signal.c" from: http://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu.git;a=commit;h=02d2bd5d57812154cfb978bc2098cf49d551583d + +And now I'm finally able to compile, link and install qemu-1.1.0 on Ubuntu 13.04 without any error! :) + +N.B: I have attached the four files as tar.gz for further reference; you may want to include these new files into qemu 1.1.0. + +QEMU 1.1.0 is not maintained anymore, so closing this as "Won't fix". + |