[PATCH 0/1] OvmfPkg/PlatformPei: support >=1TB high RAM, and discontiguous high RAM

[PATCH 0/1] OvmfPkg/PlatformPei: support >=1TB high RAM, and discontiguous high RAM

[Laszlo Ersek]

The commit message says it all.

BZ:     https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1468526
Repo:   https://github.com/lersek/edk2.git
Branch: highram1tb

Cc: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>
Cc: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
Cc: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
Cc: Jordan Justen <jordan.l.justen@intel.com>

Thanks
Laszlo

Laszlo Ersek (1):
  OvmfPkg/PlatformPei: support >=1TB high RAM, and discontiguous high
    RAM

 OvmfPkg/PlatformPei/MemDetect.c | 161 +++++++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 159 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

-- 
2.13.1.3.g8be5a757fa67

[PATCH 1/1] OvmfPkg/PlatformPei: support >=1TB high RAM, and discontiguous high RAM

[Laszlo Ersek]

In OVMF we currently get the upper (>=4GB) memory size with the
GetSystemMemorySizeAbove4gb() function.

The GetSystemMemorySizeAbove4gb() function is used in two places:

(1) It is the starting point of the calculations in GetFirstNonAddress().
    GetFirstNonAddress() in turn
    - determines the placement of the 64-bit PCI MMIO aperture,
    - provides input for the GCD memory space map's sizing (see
      AddressWidthInitialization(), and the CPU HOB in
      MiscInitialization()),
    - influences the permanent PEI RAM cap (the DXE core's page tables,
      built in permanent PEI RAM, grow as the RAM to map grows).

(2) In QemuInitializeRam(), GetSystemMemorySizeAbove4gb() determines the
    single memory descriptor HOB that we produce for the upper memory.

Respectively, there are two problems with GetSystemMemorySizeAbove4gb():

(1) It reads a 24-bit count of 64KB RAM chunks from the CMOS, and
    therefore cannot return a larger value than one terabyte.

(2) It cannot express discontiguous high RAM.

Starting with version 1.7.0, QEMU has provided the fw_cfg file called
"etc/e820". Refer to the following QEMU commits:

- 0624c7f916b4 ("e820: pass high memory too.", 2013-10-10),
- 7d67110f2d9a ("pc: add etc/e820 fw_cfg file", 2013-10-18)
- 7db16f2480db ("pc: register e820 entries for ram", 2013-10-10)

Ever since these commits in v1.7.0 -- with the last QEMU release being
v2.9.0, and v2.10.0 under development --, the only two RAM entries added
to this E820 map correspond to the below-4GB RAM range, and the above-4GB
RAM range. And, the above-4GB range exactly matches the CMOS registers in
question; see the use of "pcms->above_4g_mem_size":

  pc_q35_init() | pc_init1()
    pc_memory_init()
      e820_add_entry(0x100000000ULL, pcms->above_4g_mem_size, E820_RAM);
    pc_cmos_init()
      val = pcms->above_4g_mem_size / 65536;
      rtc_set_memory(s, 0x5b, val);
      rtc_set_memory(s, 0x5c, val >> 8);
      rtc_set_memory(s, 0x5d, val >> 16);

Therefore, remedy the above OVMF limitations as follows:

(1) Start off GetFirstNonAddress() by scanning the E820 map for the
    highest exclusive >=4GB RAM address. Fall back to the CMOS if the E820
    map is unavailable. Base all further calculations (such as 64-bit PCI
    MMIO aperture placement, GCD sizing etc) on this value.

    At the moment, the only difference this change makes is that we can
    have more than 1TB above 4GB -- given that the sole "high RAM" entry
    in the E820 map matches the CMOS exactly, modulo the most significant
    bits (see above).

    However, Igor plans to add discontiguous (cold-plugged) high RAM to
    the fw_cfg E820 RAM map later on, and then this scanning will adapt
    automatically.

(2) In QemuInitializeRam(), describe the high RAM regions from the E820
    map one by one with memory HOBs. Fall back to the CMOS only if the
    E820 map is missing.

    Again, right now this change only makes a difference if there is at
    least 1TB high RAM. Later on it will adapt to discontiguous high RAM
    (regardless of its size) automatically.

-*-

Implementation details: introduce the E820HighRamIterate() function, which
reads the E820 entries from fw_cfg, and calls the requested callback
function on each high RAM entry found. The RAM map is not read in a single
go, because its size can vary, and in PlatformPei we should stay away from
dynamic memory allocation, for the following reasons:

- "Pool" allocations are limited to ~64KB, are served from HOBs, and
  cannot be released ever.

- "Page" allocations are seriously limited before PlatformPei installs the
  permanent PEI RAM. Furthermore, page allocations can only be released in
  DXE, with dedicated code (so the address would have to be passed on with
  a HOB or PCD).

- Raw memory allocation HOBs would require the same freeing in DXE.

Therefore we process each E820 entry as soon as it is read from fw_cfg.

-*-

Considering the impact of high RAM on the DXE core:

A few years ago, installing high RAM as *tested* would cause the DXE core
to inhabit such ranges rather than carving out its home from the permanent
PEI RAM. Fortunately, this was fixed in the following edk2 commit:

  3a05b13106d1, "MdeModulePkg DxeCore: Take the range in resource HOB for
                PHIT as higher priority", 2015-09-18

which I regression-tested at the time:

  http://mid.mail-archive.com/55FC27B0.4070807@redhat.com

Later on, OVMF was changed to install its high RAM as tested (effectively
"arming" the earlier DXE core change for OVMF), in the following edk2
commit:

  035ce3b37c90, "OvmfPkg/PlatformPei: Add memory above 4GB as tested",
                2016-04-21

which I also regression-tested at the time:

  http://mid.mail-archive.com/571E8B90.1020102@redhat.com

Therefore adding more "tested memory" HOBs is safe.

Cc: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>
Cc: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
Cc: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
Cc: Jordan Justen <jordan.l.justen@intel.com>
Ref: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1468526
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
---
 OvmfPkg/PlatformPei/MemDetect.c | 161 +++++++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 159 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/OvmfPkg/PlatformPei/MemDetect.c b/OvmfPkg/PlatformPei/MemDetect.c
index 97f3fa5afcf5..67e136252e1f 100644
--- a/OvmfPkg/PlatformPei/MemDetect.c
+++ b/OvmfPkg/PlatformPei/MemDetect.c
@@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ Module Name:
 //
 // The package level header files this module uses
 //
+#include <IndustryStandard/E820.h>
 #include <IndustryStandard/Q35MchIch9.h>
 #include <PiPei.h>
 
@@ -103,6 +104,142 @@ Q35TsegMbytesInitialization (
 }
 
 
+/**
+  Callback function for the high RAM entries in QEMU's fw_cfg E820 RAM map.
+
+  @param[in] HighRamEntry  The EFI_E820_ENTRY64 structure to process.
+
+  @param[in,out] Context   Opaque context object used while looping over the
+                           RAM map.
+**/
+typedef
+VOID
+(*E820_HIGH_RAM_ENTRY_CALLBACK) (
+  IN     CONST EFI_E820_ENTRY64 *HighRamEntry,
+  IN OUT VOID                   *Context
+  );
+
+
+/**
+  Iterate over the high RAM entries in QEMU's fw_cfg E820 RAM map.
+
+  @param[in] Callback     The callback function to pass each high RAM entry to.
+
+  @param[in,out] Context  Context to pass to Callback invariably on each
+                          invocation.
+
+  @retval EFI_SUCCESS         The fw_cfg E820 RAM map was found and processed.
+
+  @retval EFI_PROTOCOL_ERROR  The RAM map was found, but its size wasn't a
+                              whole multiple of sizeof(EFI_E820_ENTRY64).
+                              Callback() was not invoked.
+
+  @return                     Error codes from QemuFwCfgFindFile(). Callback()
+                              was not invoked.
+**/
+STATIC
+EFI_STATUS
+E820HighRamIterate (
+  IN     E820_HIGH_RAM_ENTRY_CALLBACK Callback,
+  IN OUT VOID                         *Context
+  )
+{
+  EFI_STATUS           Status;
+  FIRMWARE_CONFIG_ITEM FwCfgItem;
+  UINTN                FwCfgSize;
+  EFI_E820_ENTRY64     E820Entry;
+  UINTN                Processed;
+
+  Status = QemuFwCfgFindFile ("etc/e820", &FwCfgItem, &FwCfgSize);
+  if (EFI_ERROR (Status)) {
+    return Status;
+  }
+  if (FwCfgSize % sizeof E820Entry != 0) {
+    return EFI_PROTOCOL_ERROR;
+  }
+
+  QemuFwCfgSelectItem (FwCfgItem);
+  for (Processed = 0; Processed < FwCfgSize; Processed += sizeof E820Entry) {
+    QemuFwCfgReadBytes (sizeof E820Entry, &E820Entry);
+    DEBUG ((
+      DEBUG_VERBOSE,
+      "%a: Base=0x%Lx Length=0x%Lx Type=%u\n",
+      __FUNCTION__,
+      E820Entry.BaseAddr,
+      E820Entry.Length,
+      E820Entry.Type
+      ));
+    if (E820Entry.Type == EfiAcpiAddressRangeMemory &&
+        E820Entry.BaseAddr >= BASE_4GB) {
+      Callback (&E820Entry, Context);
+    }
+  }
+  return EFI_SUCCESS;
+}
+
+
+/**
+  Callback function for E820HighRamIterate() that finds the highest exclusive
+  >=4GB RAM address.
+
+  @param[in] HighRamEntry    The EFI_E820_ENTRY64 structure to process.
+
+  @param[in,out] MaxAddress  The highest exclusive >=4GB RAM address,
+                             represented as a UINT64, that has been found thus
+                             far in the search. Before calling
+                             E820HighRamIterate(), the caller shall set
+                             MaxAddress to BASE_4GB. When E820HighRamIterate()
+                             returns with success, MaxAddress holds the highest
+                             exclusive >=4GB RAM address.
+**/
+VOID
+E820HighRamFindHighestExclusiveAddress (
+  IN     CONST EFI_E820_ENTRY64 *HighRamEntry,
+  IN OUT VOID                   *MaxAddress
+  )
+{
+  UINT64 *Current;
+  UINT64 Candidate;
+
+  Current = MaxAddress;
+  Candidate = HighRamEntry->BaseAddr + HighRamEntry->Length;
+  if (Candidate > *Current) {
+    *Current = Candidate;
+    DEBUG ((DEBUG_VERBOSE, "%a: MaxAddress=0x%Lx\n", __FUNCTION__, *Current));
+  }
+}
+
+
+/**
+  Callback function for E820HighRamIterate() that produces memory resource
+  descriptor HOBs.
+
+  @param[in] HighRamEntry  The EFI_E820_ENTRY64 structure to process.
+
+  @param[in,out] Context   Ignored.
+**/
+VOID
+E820HighRamAddMemoryHob (
+  IN     CONST EFI_E820_ENTRY64 *HighRamEntry,
+  IN OUT VOID                   *Context
+  )
+{
+  UINT64 Base;
+  UINT64 End;
+
+  //
+  // Round up the start address, and round down the end address.
+  //
+  Base = ALIGN_VALUE (HighRamEntry->BaseAddr, (UINT64)EFI_PAGE_SIZE);
+  End = (HighRamEntry->BaseAddr + HighRamEntry->Length) &
+        ~(UINT64)EFI_PAGE_MASK;
+  if (Base < End) {
+    AddMemoryRangeHob (Base, End);
+    DEBUG ((DEBUG_VERBOSE, "%a: [0x%Lx, 0x%Lx)\n", __FUNCTION__, Base, End));
+  }
+}
+
+
 UINT32
 GetSystemMemorySizeBelow4gb (
   VOID
@@ -170,7 +307,21 @@ GetFirstNonAddress (
   UINT64               HotPlugMemoryEnd;
   RETURN_STATUS        PcdStatus;
 
-  FirstNonAddress = BASE_4GB + GetSystemMemorySizeAbove4gb ();
+  //
+  // If QEMU presents an E820 map, then get the highest exclusive >=4GB RAM
+  // address from it. This can express an address >= 4GB+1TB.
+  //
+  // Otherwise, get the flat size of the memory above 4GB from the CMOS (which
+  // can only express a size smaller than 1TB), and add it to 4GB.
+  //
+  FirstNonAddress = BASE_4GB;
+  Status = E820HighRamIterate (
+             E820HighRamFindHighestExclusiveAddress,
+             &FirstNonAddress
+             );
+  if (EFI_ERROR (Status)) {
+    FirstNonAddress = BASE_4GB + GetSystemMemorySizeAbove4gb ();
+  }
 
   //
   // If DXE is 32-bit, then we're done; PciBusDxe will degrade 64-bit MMIO
@@ -525,7 +676,13 @@ QemuInitializeRam (
       AddMemoryRangeHob (BASE_1MB, LowerMemorySize);
     }
 
-    if (UpperMemorySize != 0) {
+    //
+    // If QEMU presents an E820 map, then create memory HOBs for the >=4GB RAM
+    // entries. Otherwise, create a single memory HOB with the flat >=4GB
+    // memory size read from the CMOS.
+    //
+    Status = E820HighRamIterate (E820HighRamAddMemoryHob, NULL);
+    if (EFI_ERROR (Status) && UpperMemorySize != 0) {
       AddMemoryBaseSizeHob (BASE_4GB, UpperMemorySize);
     }
   }
-- 
2.13.1.3.g8be5a757fa67

Re: [PATCH 1/1] OvmfPkg/PlatformPei: support >=1TB high RAM, and discontiguous high RAM

[Igor Mammedov]

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 05:22:31 +0200
Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> wrote:

> In OVMF we currently get the upper (>=4GB) memory size with the
> GetSystemMemorySizeAbove4gb() function.
> 
> The GetSystemMemorySizeAbove4gb() function is used in two places:
> 
> (1) It is the starting point of the calculations in GetFirstNonAddress().
>     GetFirstNonAddress() in turn
>     - determines the placement of the 64-bit PCI MMIO aperture,
that's probably broken in memory hotplug case as
the first usable PCI MMIO address is at fwcfg("etc/reserved-memory-end")

though the file exists only when memory hotplug is enabled
( to make life of FW writers harder :/ )

>     - provides input for the GCD memory space map's sizing (see
>       AddressWidthInitialization(), and the CPU HOB in
>       MiscInitialization()),
>     - influences the permanent PEI RAM cap (the DXE core's page tables,
>       built in permanent PEI RAM, grow as the RAM to map grows).
> 
> (2) In QemuInitializeRam(), GetSystemMemorySizeAbove4gb() determines the
>     single memory descriptor HOB that we produce for the upper memory.
> 
> Respectively, there are two problems with GetSystemMemorySizeAbove4gb():
> 
> (1) It reads a 24-bit count of 64KB RAM chunks from the CMOS, and
>     therefore cannot return a larger value than one terabyte.
> 
> (2) It cannot express discontiguous high RAM.
> 
> Starting with version 1.7.0, QEMU has provided the fw_cfg file called
> "etc/e820". Refer to the following QEMU commits:
> 
> - 0624c7f916b4 ("e820: pass high memory too.", 2013-10-10),
> - 7d67110f2d9a ("pc: add etc/e820 fw_cfg file", 2013-10-18)
> - 7db16f2480db ("pc: register e820 entries for ram", 2013-10-10)
> 
> Ever since these commits in v1.7.0 -- with the last QEMU release being
> v2.9.0, and v2.10.0 under development --, the only two RAM entries added
> to this E820 map correspond to the below-4GB RAM range, and the above-4GB
> RAM range. And, the above-4GB range exactly matches the CMOS registers in
> question; see the use of "pcms->above_4g_mem_size":
> 
>   pc_q35_init() | pc_init1()
>     pc_memory_init()
>       e820_add_entry(0x100000000ULL, pcms->above_4g_mem_size, E820_RAM);
>     pc_cmos_init()
>       val = pcms->above_4g_mem_size / 65536;
>       rtc_set_memory(s, 0x5b, val);
>       rtc_set_memory(s, 0x5c, val >> 8);
>       rtc_set_memory(s, 0x5d, val >> 16);
> 
> Therefore, remedy the above OVMF limitations as follows:
> 
> (1) Start off GetFirstNonAddress() by scanning the E820 map for the
>     highest exclusive >=4GB RAM address. Fall back to the CMOS if the E820
>     map is unavailable. Base all further calculations (such as 64-bit PCI
>     MMIO aperture placement, GCD sizing etc) on this value.
> 
>     At the moment, the only difference this change makes is that we can
>     have more than 1TB above 4GB -- given that the sole "high RAM" entry
>     in the E820 map matches the CMOS exactly, modulo the most significant
>     bits (see above).
> 
>     However, Igor plans to add discontiguous (cold-plugged) high RAM to
>     the fw_cfg E820 RAM map later on, and then this scanning will adapt
>     automatically.
> 
> (2) In QemuInitializeRam(), describe the high RAM regions from the E820
>     map one by one with memory HOBs. Fall back to the CMOS only if the
>     E820 map is missing.
> 
>     Again, right now this change only makes a difference if there is at
>     least 1TB high RAM. Later on it will adapt to discontiguous high RAM
>     (regardless of its size) automatically.
> 
> -*-
> 
> Implementation details: introduce the E820HighRamIterate() function, which
> reads the E820 entries from fw_cfg, and calls the requested callback
> function on each high RAM entry found. The RAM map is not read in a single
> go, because its size can vary, and in PlatformPei we should stay away from
> dynamic memory allocation, for the following reasons:
> 
> - "Pool" allocations are limited to ~64KB, are served from HOBs, and
>   cannot be released ever.
> 
> - "Page" allocations are seriously limited before PlatformPei installs the
>   permanent PEI RAM. Furthermore, page allocations can only be released in
>   DXE, with dedicated code (so the address would have to be passed on with
>   a HOB or PCD).
> 
> - Raw memory allocation HOBs would require the same freeing in DXE.
> 
> Therefore we process each E820 entry as soon as it is read from fw_cfg.
> 
> -*-
> 
> Considering the impact of high RAM on the DXE core:
> 
> A few years ago, installing high RAM as *tested* would cause the DXE core
> to inhabit such ranges rather than carving out its home from the permanent
> PEI RAM. Fortunately, this was fixed in the following edk2 commit:
> 
>   3a05b13106d1, "MdeModulePkg DxeCore: Take the range in resource HOB for
>                 PHIT as higher priority", 2015-09-18
> 
> which I regression-tested at the time:
> 
>   http://mid.mail-archive.com/55FC27B0.4070807@redhat.com
> 
> Later on, OVMF was changed to install its high RAM as tested (effectively
> "arming" the earlier DXE core change for OVMF), in the following edk2
> commit:
> 
>   035ce3b37c90, "OvmfPkg/PlatformPei: Add memory above 4GB as tested",
>                 2016-04-21
> 
> which I also regression-tested at the time:
> 
>   http://mid.mail-archive.com/571E8B90.1020102@redhat.com
> 
> Therefore adding more "tested memory" HOBs is safe.
> 
> Cc: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>
> Cc: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
> Cc: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
> Cc: Jordan Justen <jordan.l.justen@intel.com>
> Ref: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1468526
> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
> Signed-off-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
> ---
>  OvmfPkg/PlatformPei/MemDetect.c | 161 +++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 159 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/OvmfPkg/PlatformPei/MemDetect.c b/OvmfPkg/PlatformPei/MemDetect.c
> index 97f3fa5afcf5..67e136252e1f 100644
> --- a/OvmfPkg/PlatformPei/MemDetect.c
> +++ b/OvmfPkg/PlatformPei/MemDetect.c
> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ Module Name:
>  //
>  // The package level header files this module uses
>  //
> +#include <IndustryStandard/E820.h>
>  #include <IndustryStandard/Q35MchIch9.h>
>  #include <PiPei.h>
>  
> @@ -103,6 +104,142 @@ Q35TsegMbytesInitialization (
>  }
>  
>  
> +/**
> +  Callback function for the high RAM entries in QEMU's fw_cfg E820 RAM map.
> +
> +  @param[in] HighRamEntry  The EFI_E820_ENTRY64 structure to process.
> +
> +  @param[in,out] Context   Opaque context object used while looping over the
> +                           RAM map.
> +**/
> +typedef
> +VOID
> +(*E820_HIGH_RAM_ENTRY_CALLBACK) (
> +  IN     CONST EFI_E820_ENTRY64 *HighRamEntry,
> +  IN OUT VOID                   *Context
> +  );
> +
> +
> +/**
> +  Iterate over the high RAM entries in QEMU's fw_cfg E820 RAM map.
> +
> +  @param[in] Callback     The callback function to pass each high RAM entry to.
> +
> +  @param[in,out] Context  Context to pass to Callback invariably on each
> +                          invocation.
> +
> +  @retval EFI_SUCCESS         The fw_cfg E820 RAM map was found and processed.
> +
> +  @retval EFI_PROTOCOL_ERROR  The RAM map was found, but its size wasn't a
> +                              whole multiple of sizeof(EFI_E820_ENTRY64).
> +                              Callback() was not invoked.
> +
> +  @return                     Error codes from QemuFwCfgFindFile(). Callback()
> +                              was not invoked.
> +**/
> +STATIC
> +EFI_STATUS
> +E820HighRamIterate (
> +  IN     E820_HIGH_RAM_ENTRY_CALLBACK Callback,
> +  IN OUT VOID                         *Context
> +  )
> +{
> +  EFI_STATUS           Status;
> +  FIRMWARE_CONFIG_ITEM FwCfgItem;
> +  UINTN                FwCfgSize;
> +  EFI_E820_ENTRY64     E820Entry;
> +  UINTN                Processed;
> +
> +  Status = QemuFwCfgFindFile ("etc/e820", &FwCfgItem, &FwCfgSize);
> +  if (EFI_ERROR (Status)) {
> +    return Status;
> +  }
> +  if (FwCfgSize % sizeof E820Entry != 0) {
> +    return EFI_PROTOCOL_ERROR;
> +  }
> +
> +  QemuFwCfgSelectItem (FwCfgItem);
> +  for (Processed = 0; Processed < FwCfgSize; Processed += sizeof E820Entry) {
> +    QemuFwCfgReadBytes (sizeof E820Entry, &E820Entry);
> +    DEBUG ((
> +      DEBUG_VERBOSE,
> +      "%a: Base=0x%Lx Length=0x%Lx Type=%u\n",
> +      __FUNCTION__,
> +      E820Entry.BaseAddr,
> +      E820Entry.Length,
> +      E820Entry.Type
> +      ));
> +    if (E820Entry.Type == EfiAcpiAddressRangeMemory &&
> +        E820Entry.BaseAddr >= BASE_4GB) {
> +      Callback (&E820Entry, Context);
> +    }
> +  }
> +  return EFI_SUCCESS;
> +}
> +
> +
> +/**
> +  Callback function for E820HighRamIterate() that finds the highest exclusive
> +  >=4GB RAM address.
> +
> +  @param[in] HighRamEntry    The EFI_E820_ENTRY64 structure to process.
> +
> +  @param[in,out] MaxAddress  The highest exclusive >=4GB RAM address,
> +                             represented as a UINT64, that has been found thus
> +                             far in the search. Before calling
> +                             E820HighRamIterate(), the caller shall set
> +                             MaxAddress to BASE_4GB. When E820HighRamIterate()
> +                             returns with success, MaxAddress holds the highest
> +                             exclusive >=4GB RAM address.
> +**/
> +VOID
> +E820HighRamFindHighestExclusiveAddress (
> +  IN     CONST EFI_E820_ENTRY64 *HighRamEntry,
> +  IN OUT VOID                   *MaxAddress
> +  )
> +{
> +  UINT64 *Current;
> +  UINT64 Candidate;
> +
> +  Current = MaxAddress;
> +  Candidate = HighRamEntry->BaseAddr + HighRamEntry->Length;
> +  if (Candidate > *Current) {
> +    *Current = Candidate;
> +    DEBUG ((DEBUG_VERBOSE, "%a: MaxAddress=0x%Lx\n", __FUNCTION__, *Current));
> +  }
> +}
> +
> +
> +/**
> +  Callback function for E820HighRamIterate() that produces memory resource
> +  descriptor HOBs.
> +
> +  @param[in] HighRamEntry  The EFI_E820_ENTRY64 structure to process.
> +
> +  @param[in,out] Context   Ignored.
> +**/
> +VOID
> +E820HighRamAddMemoryHob (
> +  IN     CONST EFI_E820_ENTRY64 *HighRamEntry,
> +  IN OUT VOID                   *Context
> +  )
> +{
> +  UINT64 Base;
> +  UINT64 End;
> +
> +  //
> +  // Round up the start address, and round down the end address.
> +  //
> +  Base = ALIGN_VALUE (HighRamEntry->BaseAddr, (UINT64)EFI_PAGE_SIZE);
> +  End = (HighRamEntry->BaseAddr + HighRamEntry->Length) &
> +        ~(UINT64)EFI_PAGE_MASK;
> +  if (Base < End) {
> +    AddMemoryRangeHob (Base, End);
> +    DEBUG ((DEBUG_VERBOSE, "%a: [0x%Lx, 0x%Lx)\n", __FUNCTION__, Base, End));
> +  }
> +}
> +
> +
>  UINT32
>  GetSystemMemorySizeBelow4gb (
>    VOID
> @@ -170,7 +307,21 @@ GetFirstNonAddress (
>    UINT64               HotPlugMemoryEnd;
>    RETURN_STATUS        PcdStatus;
>  
> -  FirstNonAddress = BASE_4GB + GetSystemMemorySizeAbove4gb ();
> +  //
> +  // If QEMU presents an E820 map, then get the highest exclusive >=4GB RAM
> +  // address from it. This can express an address >= 4GB+1TB.
> +  //
> +  // Otherwise, get the flat size of the memory above 4GB from the CMOS (which
> +  // can only express a size smaller than 1TB), and add it to 4GB.
> +  //
> +  FirstNonAddress = BASE_4GB;
> +  Status = E820HighRamIterate (
> +             E820HighRamFindHighestExclusiveAddress,
> +             &FirstNonAddress
> +             );
> +  if (EFI_ERROR (Status)) {
> +    FirstNonAddress = BASE_4GB + GetSystemMemorySizeAbove4gb ();
> +  }
>  
>    //
>    // If DXE is 32-bit, then we're done; PciBusDxe will degrade 64-bit MMIO
> @@ -525,7 +676,13 @@ QemuInitializeRam (
>        AddMemoryRangeHob (BASE_1MB, LowerMemorySize);
>      }
>  
> -    if (UpperMemorySize != 0) {
> +    //
> +    // If QEMU presents an E820 map, then create memory HOBs for the >=4GB RAM
> +    // entries. Otherwise, create a single memory HOB with the flat >=4GB
> +    // memory size read from the CMOS.
> +    //
> +    Status = E820HighRamIterate (E820HighRamAddMemoryHob, NULL);
> +    if (EFI_ERROR (Status) && UpperMemorySize != 0) {
>        AddMemoryBaseSizeHob (BASE_4GB, UpperMemorySize);
>      }
>    }

Re: [PATCH 1/1] OvmfPkg/PlatformPei: support >=1TB high RAM, and discontiguous high RAM

[Laszlo Ersek]

On 07/11/17 10:38, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 05:22:31 +0200
> Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> In OVMF we currently get the upper (>=4GB) memory size with the
>> GetSystemMemorySizeAbove4gb() function.
>>
>> The GetSystemMemorySizeAbove4gb() function is used in two places:
>>
>> (1) It is the starting point of the calculations in GetFirstNonAddress().
>>     GetFirstNonAddress() in turn
>>     - determines the placement of the 64-bit PCI MMIO aperture,
> that's probably broken in memory hotplug case as
> the first usable PCI MMIO address is at fwcfg("etc/reserved-memory-end")

No, it's not broken :) I wrote above, "starting point of the
calculations". The fw_cfg file "etc/reserved-memory-end" is specifically
considered already. (You explained that file to me when I previously
worked on this code, in 2016Q1 or so.) It's just a later point in the
calculation.

> though the file exists only when memory hotplug is enabled
> ( to make life of FW writers harder :/ )

No problem, OVMF deals with "etc/reserved-memory-end" being either
present or absent.

Basically the GetFirstNonAddress() function performs a "cascade of
increases" upwards, for determining the highest address plus one (i.e.,
the first non-address).

If you'd like to see the full function (with this patch applied), it
starts at:

https://github.com/lersek/edk2/blob/highram1tb/OvmfPkg/PlatformPei/MemDetect.c#L292

It is heavily commented.

Thanks!
Laszlo

Re: [PATCH 0/1] OvmfPkg/PlatformPei: support >=1TB high RAM, and discontiguous high RAM

[Laszlo Ersek]

Jordan, can you please ack this?

Thanks
Laszlo

On 07/11/17 05:22, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> The commit message says it all.
> 
> BZ:     https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1468526
> Repo:   https://github.com/lersek/edk2.git
> Branch: highram1tb
> 
> Cc: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>
> Cc: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
> Cc: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
> Cc: Jordan Justen <jordan.l.justen@intel.com>
> 
> Thanks
> Laszlo
> 
> Laszlo Ersek (1):
>   OvmfPkg/PlatformPei: support >=1TB high RAM, and discontiguous high
>     RAM
> 
>  OvmfPkg/PlatformPei/MemDetect.c | 161 +++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 159 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 

Re: [PATCH 1/1] OvmfPkg/PlatformPei: support >=1TB high RAM, and discontiguous high RAM

[Jordan Justen]

On 2017-07-10 20:22:31, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> +STATIC
> +EFI_STATUS
> +E820HighRamIterate (
> +  IN     E820_HIGH_RAM_ENTRY_CALLBACK Callback,
> +  IN OUT VOID                         *Context
> +  )

I think a simpler option would be:

STATIC
EFI_STATUS
ScanOrAddE820HighRam (
  IN     E820_HIGH_RAM_ENTRY_CALLBACK Callback,
  OUT    UINT64                       *MaxAddress  OPTIONAL
  )

If MaxAddress != NULL, then scan for it, otherwise add HOBs.

Do you anticipate future needs where the iterate callback could be
helpful?

You might also consider ScanOrAdd64BitE820Ram to somewhat clarify that
the 'HighRam' is addresses that don't fit in 32 bits.

> +  QemuFwCfgSelectItem (FwCfgItem);
> +  for (Processed = 0; Processed < FwCfgSize; Processed += sizeof E820Entry) {
> +    QemuFwCfgReadBytes (sizeof E820Entry, &E820Entry);
> +    DEBUG ((
> +      DEBUG_VERBOSE,
> +      "%a: Base=0x%Lx Length=0x%Lx Type=%u\n",
> +      __FUNCTION__,
> +      E820Entry.BaseAddr,
> +      E820Entry.Length,
> +      E820Entry.Type
> +      ));
> +    if (E820Entry.Type == EfiAcpiAddressRangeMemory &&
> +        E820Entry.BaseAddr >= BASE_4GB) {

I guess at least for IA32/X64, today, and for the foreseeable future
the firmware device will cause a break at 4GB.

It seems like we could just check for the end of the range to be above
4GB to easily remove this assumption, right?

-Jordan

Re: [PATCH 1/1] OvmfPkg/PlatformPei: support >=1TB high RAM, and discontiguous high RAM

[Laszlo Ersek]

On 07/26/17 02:13, Jordan Justen wrote:
> On 2017-07-10 20:22:31, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> +STATIC
>> +EFI_STATUS
>> +E820HighRamIterate (
>> +  IN     E820_HIGH_RAM_ENTRY_CALLBACK Callback,
>> +  IN OUT VOID                         *Context
>> +  )
> 
> I think a simpler option would be:
> 
> STATIC
> EFI_STATUS
> ScanOrAddE820HighRam (
>   IN     E820_HIGH_RAM_ENTRY_CALLBACK Callback,
>   OUT    UINT64                       *MaxAddress  OPTIONAL
>   )
> 
> If MaxAddress != NULL, then scan for it, otherwise add HOBs.
> 
> Do you anticipate future needs where the iterate callback could be
> helpful?

Not at the moment.

Originally I started with two open-coded loops, but the code duplication
in this case was really ugly. Using callbacks simplified the call sites
very nicely. And, I was a bit concerned that you wouldn't like a
solution that wasn't generic enough :)

I can rework the function like suggested if you prefer that.

> 
> You might also consider ScanOrAdd64BitE820Ram to somewhat clarify that
> the 'HighRam' is addresses that don't fit in 32 bits.

OK.

> 
>> +  QemuFwCfgSelectItem (FwCfgItem);
>> +  for (Processed = 0; Processed < FwCfgSize; Processed += sizeof E820Entry) {
>> +    QemuFwCfgReadBytes (sizeof E820Entry, &E820Entry);
>> +    DEBUG ((
>> +      DEBUG_VERBOSE,
>> +      "%a: Base=0x%Lx Length=0x%Lx Type=%u\n",
>> +      __FUNCTION__,
>> +      E820Entry.BaseAddr,
>> +      E820Entry.Length,
>> +      E820Entry.Type
>> +      ));
>> +    if (E820Entry.Type == EfiAcpiAddressRangeMemory &&
>> +        E820Entry.BaseAddr >= BASE_4GB) {
> 
> I guess at least for IA32/X64, today, and for the foreseeable future
> the firmware device will cause a break at 4GB.

Sorry, I don't understand. What do you mean by "firmware device" and
"break at 4GB"?

> It seems like we could just check for the end of the range to be above
> 4GB to easily remove this assumption, right?

I wanted to ensure that no RAM range would be included that (for any
unexpected reason) straddled the 4GB mark.

Do you mean that the pflash address range is guaranteed to end at 4GB
(exclusive), so no RAM range can straddle the mark?

Even so, what expression do you have in mind exactly? As far as I can
imagine, checking the end vs. the base of the E820 entry would only
complicate the above expression, not simplify it.

Please elaborate :)

Thanks
Laszlo

Re: [PATCH 1/1] OvmfPkg/PlatformPei: support >=1TB high RAM, and discontiguous high RAM

[Jordan Justen]

On 2017-07-26 09:23:26, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 07/26/17 02:13, Jordan Justen wrote:
> > On 2017-07-10 20:22:31, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> >> +STATIC
> >> +EFI_STATUS
> >> +E820HighRamIterate (
> >> +  IN     E820_HIGH_RAM_ENTRY_CALLBACK Callback,
> >> +  IN OUT VOID                         *Context
> >> +  )
> > 
> > I think a simpler option would be:
> > 
> > STATIC
> > EFI_STATUS
> > ScanOrAddE820HighRam (
> >   IN     E820_HIGH_RAM_ENTRY_CALLBACK Callback,
> >   OUT    UINT64                       *MaxAddress  OPTIONAL
> >   )
> >
> > If MaxAddress != NULL, then scan for it, otherwise add HOBs.
> > 
> > Do you anticipate future needs where the iterate callback could be
> > helpful?
> 
> Not at the moment.
> 
> Originally I started with two open-coded loops, but the code duplication
> in this case was really ugly. Using callbacks simplified the call sites
> very nicely. And, I was a bit concerned that you wouldn't like a
> solution that wasn't generic enough :)
> 
> I can rework the function like suggested if you prefer that.

I moved the code of the 2 callbacks into the the function and dropped
the callbacks to see how it looked. It seemed a bit clearer and was
less code.

The callback almost seems like something to consider for fw-cfg lib,
except I don't think we really have the need today.

> > 
> > You might also consider ScanOrAdd64BitE820Ram to somewhat clarify that
> > the 'HighRam' is addresses that don't fit in 32 bits.
> 
> OK.
> 
> > 
> >> +  QemuFwCfgSelectItem (FwCfgItem);
> >> +  for (Processed = 0; Processed < FwCfgSize; Processed += sizeof E820Entry) {
> >> +    QemuFwCfgReadBytes (sizeof E820Entry, &E820Entry);
> >> +    DEBUG ((
> >> +      DEBUG_VERBOSE,
> >> +      "%a: Base=0x%Lx Length=0x%Lx Type=%u\n",
> >> +      __FUNCTION__,
> >> +      E820Entry.BaseAddr,
> >> +      E820Entry.Length,
> >> +      E820Entry.Type
> >> +      ));
> >> +    if (E820Entry.Type == EfiAcpiAddressRangeMemory &&
> >> +        E820Entry.BaseAddr >= BASE_4GB) {
> > 
> > I guess at least for IA32/X64, today, and for the foreseeable future
> > the firmware device will cause a break at 4GB.
> 
> Sorry, I don't understand. What do you mean by "firmware device" and
> "break at 4GB"?
> 
> > It seems like we could just check for the end of the range to be above
> > 4GB to easily remove this assumption, right?
> 
> I wanted to ensure that no RAM range would be included that (for any
> unexpected reason) straddled the 4GB mark.
> 
> Do you mean that the pflash address range is guaranteed to end at 4GB
> (exclusive), so no RAM range can straddle the mark?
> 
> Even so, what expression do you have in mind exactly? As far as I can
> imagine, checking the end vs. the base of the E820 entry would only
> complicate the above expression, not simplify it.
> 
> Please elaborate :)

Yeah, I meant is there any easy way to handle a situation (unlike qemu
piix4/q35 systems) where a RAM region went from below 4GB to above
4GB. If you don't think there is a simple was to handle it, then don't
worry about it.

-Jordan

Re: [PATCH 1/1] OvmfPkg/PlatformPei: support >=1TB high RAM, and discontiguous high RAM

[Laszlo Ersek]

On 08/04/17 10:50, Jordan Justen wrote:
> On 2017-07-26 09:23:26, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 07/26/17 02:13, Jordan Justen wrote:
>>> On 2017-07-10 20:22:31, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>>> +STATIC
>>>> +EFI_STATUS
>>>> +E820HighRamIterate (
>>>> +  IN     E820_HIGH_RAM_ENTRY_CALLBACK Callback,
>>>> +  IN OUT VOID                         *Context
>>>> +  )
>>>
>>> I think a simpler option would be:
>>>
>>> STATIC
>>> EFI_STATUS
>>> ScanOrAddE820HighRam (
>>>   IN     E820_HIGH_RAM_ENTRY_CALLBACK Callback,
>>>   OUT    UINT64                       *MaxAddress  OPTIONAL
>>>   )
>>>
>>> If MaxAddress != NULL, then scan for it, otherwise add HOBs.
>>>
>>> Do you anticipate future needs where the iterate callback could be
>>> helpful?
>>
>> Not at the moment.
>>
>> Originally I started with two open-coded loops, but the code duplication
>> in this case was really ugly. Using callbacks simplified the call sites
>> very nicely. And, I was a bit concerned that you wouldn't like a
>> solution that wasn't generic enough :)
>>
>> I can rework the function like suggested if you prefer that.
> 
> I moved the code of the 2 callbacks into the the function and dropped
> the callbacks to see how it looked. It seemed a bit clearer and was
> less code.

OK, I'll do that.

> 
> The callback almost seems like something to consider for fw-cfg lib,
> except I don't think we really have the need today.

I agree that we don't need it now.

> 
>>>
>>> You might also consider ScanOrAdd64BitE820Ram to somewhat clarify that
>>> the 'HighRam' is addresses that don't fit in 32 bits.
>>
>> OK.
>>
>>>
>>>> +  QemuFwCfgSelectItem (FwCfgItem);
>>>> +  for (Processed = 0; Processed < FwCfgSize; Processed += sizeof E820Entry) {
>>>> +    QemuFwCfgReadBytes (sizeof E820Entry, &E820Entry);
>>>> +    DEBUG ((
>>>> +      DEBUG_VERBOSE,
>>>> +      "%a: Base=0x%Lx Length=0x%Lx Type=%u\n",
>>>> +      __FUNCTION__,
>>>> +      E820Entry.BaseAddr,
>>>> +      E820Entry.Length,
>>>> +      E820Entry.Type
>>>> +      ));
>>>> +    if (E820Entry.Type == EfiAcpiAddressRangeMemory &&
>>>> +        E820Entry.BaseAddr >= BASE_4GB) {
>>>
>>> I guess at least for IA32/X64, today, and for the foreseeable future
>>> the firmware device will cause a break at 4GB.
>>
>> Sorry, I don't understand. What do you mean by "firmware device" and
>> "break at 4GB"?
>>
>>> It seems like we could just check for the end of the range to be above
>>> 4GB to easily remove this assumption, right?
>>
>> I wanted to ensure that no RAM range would be included that (for any
>> unexpected reason) straddled the 4GB mark.
>>
>> Do you mean that the pflash address range is guaranteed to end at 4GB
>> (exclusive), so no RAM range can straddle the mark?
>>
>> Even so, what expression do you have in mind exactly? As far as I can
>> imagine, checking the end vs. the base of the E820 entry would only
>> complicate the above expression, not simplify it.
>>
>> Please elaborate :)
> 
> Yeah, I meant is there any easy way to handle a situation (unlike qemu
> piix4/q35 systems) where a RAM region went from below 4GB to above
> 4GB. If you don't think there is a simple was to handle it, then don't
> worry about it.

OK, thanks. I think it's out of scope for now.

Thanks
Laszlo