Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 09/12/2009 09:30, "Liu, Jinsong" <jinsong.liu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> HVM vcpu add/remove: setup dsdt and madt infrastructure for vcpu
>> In order to support HVM vcpu add/remove, we need set dsdt and madt
>> 1. at dsdt, define ACPI objects and control methods (like _MAT,
>> _EJ0, _STA) for processors;
>> 2. at dsdt, define control method _L02 corresponding to SCI
>> interrupts, build scan and notify method which trigger HVM acpi
>> driver to add/remove cpu;
>> 3. at madt, re-order madt subitems sequence, in order to make
>> checksum locating more creditable (will not be influenced by madt
>> change in the future). What is more, the re-order match normal madt
>> sequence habit;
> What's PROC_BASE, and what's APIC_MADT_PTR? No comments attached to
> them: they look like random magic numbers.
KVM has vcpu add/remove code, these 2 items learn from KVM qemu/vbios/dsdt code.
Since they belong to qemu & vbios part, I think we'd better keep same with KVM.
I will add comments for them at updated patch.
As for APIC_MADT_PTR, it use add 0x514 which at x86 memory layout belong to
BIOS use only area:
| Boot loader | <- Boot sector entry point 0000:7C00
| Reserved for MBR/BIOS |
| Typically used by MBR |
| BIOS use only |
at 000000~000600, 000400~0004ff is BDA, and 000500~0005ff can be freely used.
We can use 0x514, or 0x510, or 0x530 if want. Use 0x514 is just to keep same
with KVM. We only need sync same 0x514 at madt building code and dsdt.asl.
As for PROC_BASE, it is used to monitor cpu adding/removing status (same with
KVM). I will add comments to note that we need sync at qemu io read/write code
> DSDT code generation can be done in mk_dsdt.c, rather then addign
> preprocessor stuff to the static part of the DSDT in dsdt.asl. So
> move stuff there instead.
Yeah, good idea:)
I will merge my dsdt code to mk_dsdt.c, thanks!
> What's the MADT checksum stuff in the DSDT all about? Does the MADT
> really have to stay consistent and checksummed after boot - I would
> have assumed that it provides a boot-time snapshot of the system
> only, and would not be looked at by the OSPM after boot. I haven't
> looked at the ASL code in detail but I'll surely bet that the
> approach is fragile.
With a wrong checksum may not harm system, I'm not quite. We can do not do
However, some ACPI tools like acpidump, iasl, does concern checksum, and will
report the error.
My idea is, re-order MADT in fact will not add more code to build.c, althrough
it seem big at my patch.
The re-order will avoid the wrong checksum risk, so why we don't do it?
Of course, it depend on you, if you decide not re-order, I will clean it.
> This needs a bunch more explanation and/or reworking before I would
> accept it.
> -- Keir
Xen-devel mailing list