search for: end_address

Hello, I''ve previously been successful with Xen4 and VT-d on other systems. I am having trouble getting VT-d passthrough working to a WinXP domain with DX58SO (Q45) motherboard and i7 930 CPU. VT-d is enabled in bios, xm info shows hvm_directio capability, I have iommu=1 set, I have the devices bound to pciback on dom0 cmdline, xm pci-list-assignable-devices shows the devices as

Hello, I''ve previously been successful with Xen4 and VT-d on other systems. I am having trouble getting VT-d passthrough working to a WinXP domain with DX58SO (Q45) motherboard and i7 930 CPU. VT-d is enabled in bios, xm info shows hvm_directio capability, I have iommu=1 set, I have the devices bound to pciback on dom0 cmdline, xm pci-list-assignable-devices shows the devices as

Purchased DQ35JO on Vt-d/PCI passthrough wiki''s recommendations. Built latest xen-unstable and am getting the following via ''xm dmesg'': (XEN) [VT-D]dmar.c:374: RMRR error: base_addr d0000000 end_address cfffffff (XEN) Failed to parse ACPI DMAR. Disabling VT-d. My grub.conf looks like this: kernel /xen.gz vga=mode-0x0317 vtd=1 iommu=1 module /vmlinuz-2.6.18.8-xen ro root=/dev/XenVolGroup/LogVolXenDom0 rhgb quiet pciback.hide=(01:00.0) module /initrd-2.6.18-xe...

...ter base address of the unit */ u16 segment; @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ struct acpi_drhd_unit { }; struct acpi_rmrr_unit { - struct dmar_scope scope; /* must be first member of struct */ + struct dmar_scope scope; struct list_head list; u64 base_address; u64 end_address; @@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ struct acpi_rmrr_unit { }; struct acpi_atsr_unit { - struct dmar_scope scope; /* must be first member of struct */ + struct dmar_scope scope; struct list_head list; u16 segment; u8 all_ports:1; _______________________________________...

Hello, I''m having problems with VTD on this board. The board/cpu/bios all support vt-d and I think maybe I''m just missing something? Any feedback would be much appreciated :) Output below: root@vm:~# xm create /etc/xen/vm-nine.cfg Using config file "/etc/xen/vm-nine.cfg". Error: Failed to assign device to IOMMU (0000:05:00.0@100,msitranslate=1,power_mgmt=0)

Hello, I''m having problems with VTD on this board. The board/cpu/bios all support vt-d and I think maybe I''m just missing something? Any feedback would be much appreciated :) Output below: root@vm:~# xm create /etc/xen/vm-nine.cfg Using config file "/etc/xen/vm-nine.cfg". Error: Failed to assign device to IOMMU (0000:05:00.0@100,msitranslate=1,power_mgmt=0)

I try pci pci passthrough with xen 3.3.1 and CentOS 5.2(64bit) on a SUPERMICRO C7X58 board I see the following the error in my boot log. (XEN) [VT-D]dmar.c:372: RMRR is incorrect. This problem is caused by this condition in dmr.c:372. if ( rmrr->base_address >= rmrr->end_address ) { dprintk(XENLOG_ERR VTDPREFIX, "RMRR is incorrect.\n"); return -EFAULT; } As an experiment, I delete the "return -EFAULT" and re-compiling Xen, I can pass a PCI device through to Gest-OS(Windows XP) and have no problem with using the devices on Gest-OS. Is the above...

I try pci pci passthrough with xen 3.3.1 and CentOS 5.2(64bit) on a SUPERMICRO C7X58 board I see the following the error in my boot log. (XEN) [VT-D]dmar.c:372: RMRR is incorrect. This problem is caused by this condition in dmr.c:372. if ( rmrr->base_address >= rmrr->end_address ) { dprintk(XENLOG_ERR VTDPREFIX, "RMRR is incorrect.\n"); return -EFAULT; } As an experiment, I delete the "return -EFAULT" and re-compiling Xen, I can pass a PCI device through to Gest-OS(Windows XP) and have no problem with using the devices on Gest-OS. Is the above...

...mar.c:341:   endpoint: 0:1d.2 (XEN) [VT-D]dmar.c:341:   endpoint: 0:1d.7 (XEN) [VT-D]dmar.c:341:   endpoint: 0:1a.0 (XEN) [VT-D]dmar.c:341:   endpoint: 0:1a.1 (XEN) [VT-D]dmar.c:341:   endpoint: 0:1a.2 (XEN) [VT-D]dmar.c:341:   endpoint: 0:1a.7 (XEN) [VT-D]dmar.c:595:   RMRR region: base_addr ec000 end_address effff (XEN) [VT-D]dmar.c:724: found ACPI_DMAR_RMRR: (XEN) [VT-D]dmar.c:528:   RMRR address range not in reserved memory base = bf7da000 end = bf7d9fff; iommu_inclusive_mapping=1 parameter may be needed. (XEN) [VT-D]dmar.c:341:   endpoint: 0:1d.0 (XEN) [VT-D]dmar.c:341:   endpoint: 0:1d.1 (XEN) [VT-...

So there have been several recent discussions about the issues around DWARF-agnostic linking and gc-sections, linkonce function definitions being dropped, etc - and just how much DWARF-awareness would be suitable in a linker to help with this situation. I'd like to discuss a narrower instance of this issue: Zero length gc'd/deduplicated functions. LLVM seems to at least produce zero

...other debug sections, these values are all resolved to > >zero. > > But, this would not completely solve the problem from > https://reviews.llvm.org/D59553 - Overlapped address ranges. Binutils > approach will solve the problem if the address range specified as > start_address:end_address. While resolving relocations, it would replace > such a range with 1:1. > However, It would not work if address ranges were specified as > start_address:length since the length is not relocated. > This case could be additionally fixed by fast scan debug_info for High_PC > defined as...

...://reviews.llvm.org/D59553<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/reviews.llvm.org/D59553__;!!JmoZiZGBv3RvKRSx!r2Jqc2yEgxrb2QcQEocDHJBizj0KUKE70_57b4_rsj1TN0qB8NpBvVKtY63HSqgMOg$> - Overlapped address ranges. Binutils approach will solve the problem if the address range specified as start_address:end_address. While resolving relocations, it would replace such a range with 1:1. However, It would not work if address ranges were specified as start_address:length since the length is not relocated. This case could be additionally fixed by fast scan debug_info for High_PC defined as length and changing it to...

...MAR_DRHD: (XEN) [VT-D]dmar.c:398: dmaru->address = fed93000 (XEN) [VT-D]dmar.c:411: flags: INCLUDE_ALL (XEN) [VT-D]dmar.c:699: found ACPI_DMAR_RMRR: (XEN) [VT-D]dmar.c:334: endpoint: 0:1d.0 (XEN) [VT-D]dmar.c:334: endpoint: 0:1a.0 (XEN) [VT-D]dmar.c:571: RMRR region: base_addr bb6e9000 end_address bb6fffff (XEN) [VT-D]dmar.c:699: found ACPI_DMAR_RMRR: (XEN) [VT-D]dmar.c:334: endpoint: 0:2.0 (XEN) [VT-D]dmar.c:571: RMRR region: base_addr bde00000 end_address bfffffff (XEN) Using scheduler: SMP Credit Scheduler (credit) (XEN) Detected 2527.342 MHz processor. (XEN) Initing memory sharing. (...

Hello, I''m also seeing this exact same problem. I''ve posted on xen-users, but did not get an answer. Venkat seems to be experiencing the same problem as me. I have the latest BIOS for my motherboard DQ35JO. (BIOS ver 933) I''m running a Q6600 as well. It hangs at "Brought up 4 CPUs." I''ve tried all sorts of combinations of Xen versions and kernels to

...gt;> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/reviews.llvm.org/D59553__;!!JmoZiZGBv3RvKRSx!r2Jqc2yEgxrb2QcQEocDHJBizj0KUKE70_57b4_rsj1TN0qB8NpBvVKtY63HSqgMOg$> >> - Overlapped address ranges. Binutils approach will solve the problem if >> the address range specified as start_address:end_address. While resolving >> relocations, it would replace such a range with 1:1. >> However, It would not work if address ranges were specified as >> start_address:length since the length is not relocated. This case could be >> additionally fixed by fast scan debug_info for High_PC...

...ws.llvm.org/D59553__;!!JmoZiZGBv3 > > RvKRSx!r2Jqc2yEgxrb2QcQEocDHJBizj0KUKE70_57b4_rsj1TN0qB8NpBvVKtY63HSqgMOg$ > > > > > >> - Overlapped address ranges. Binutils approach will solve the problem > > if > > >> the address range specified as start_address:end_address. While > > resolving > > >> relocations, it would replace such a range with 1:1. > > >> However, It would not work if address ranges were specified as > > >> start_address:length since the length is not relocated. This case could > > be > > >...

...!r2Jqc2yEgxrb2QcQEocDHJBizj0KUKE70_57b4_rsj1TN0qB8NpBvVKtY63HSqgMOg$ > > > > > > > > > >> - Overlapped address ranges. Binutils approach will solve the > > problem > > > > if > > > > >> the address range specified as start_address:end_address. While > > > > resolving > > > > >> relocations, it would replace such a range with 1:1. > > > > >> However, It would not work if address ranges were specified as > > > > >> start_address:length since the length is not relocated. Thi...

...N0qB8NpBvVKtY63HSqgMOg$ > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> - Overlapped address ranges. Binutils approach will solve the > >> > problem > >> > > > if > >> > > > >> the address range specified as start_address:end_address. While > >> > > > resolving > >> > > > >> relocations, it would replace such a range with 1:1. > >> > > > >> However, It would not work if address ranges were specified as > >> > > > >> start_address:length si...

...; > > > > > >> >> > > > >> - Overlapped address ranges. Binutils approach will solve the > >> >> > problem > >> >> > > > if > >> >> > > > >> the address range specified as start_address:end_address. While > >> >> > > > resolving > >> >> > > > >> relocations, it would replace such a range with 1:1. > >> >> > > > >> However, It would not work if address ranges were specified as > >> >> > > &...

...rmrr = container_of(header, struct acpi_dmar_reserved_memory, header); - printk (KERN_INFO PREFIX - "RMRR base: %#016Lx end: %#016Lx\n", + pr_info("RMRR base: %#016llx end: %#016Lx\n", (unsigned long long)rmrr->base_address, (unsigned long long)rmrr->end_address); break; case ACPI_DMAR_TYPE_ATSR: atsr = container_of(header, struct acpi_dmar_atsr, header); - printk(KERN_INFO PREFIX "ATSR flags: %#x\n", atsr->flags); + pr_info("ATSR flags: %#x\n", atsr->flags); break; case ACPI_DMAR_HARDWARE_AFFINITY: rhsa = contai...