Re: em problem in virtualbox since the weekend

On Thursday 21 July 2011 11:53 am, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 20, 2011 6:22:33 pm Steve Wills wrote:
> > On 07/20/11 09:04, John Baldwin wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, July 20, 2011 8:33:07 am Bernhard Froehlich wrote:
> > >> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 07:41:26 -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> > >>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2011 10:35:42 pm Steve Wills wrote:
> > >>>> Hi,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> While testing some other things, I found -CURRENT from
> > >>>> yesterday doesn't work with the em0 in my VirtualBox 4.0.8
> > >>>> (a little out of date admittedly). It worked Friday or
> > >>>> Saturday I think. Anyone else seen this or should I open a
> > >>>> PR? Has the code changed or am I perhaps misremembering
> > >>>> dates? The error reported is:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> em0: Unable to allocate bus resource: memory
> > >>>> em0: Allocation of PCI resources failed
> > >>>
> > >>> This is due to a bug in VirtualBox's BIOS implementation. 
> > >>> Someone should file
> > >>> a bug report with VirtualBox to ask them to fix their BIOS. 
> > >>> The problem is that they claim that the Host-PCI bridge in
> > >>> their system only decodes addresses 0xa0000-0xbffff (i.e. the
> > >>> VGA window) via the "Producer" resources in the _CRS method
> > >>> of the Host-PCI bridge device.  This tells the OS that all
> > >>> the existing PCI devices are using invalid memory address
> > >>> ranges but that there is also no available address space to
> > >>> allocate for PCI devices such as em0.
> > >>>
> > >>> You can workaround this by setting
> > >>> "debug.acpi.disabled=hostres" until VirtualBox fixes their
> > >>> code.  I'm happy to provide further clarification to an
> > >>> existing VirtaulBox bug report if needed.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks a lot for the analysis! I've talked to one of the
> > >> virtualbox developers about that but they are not aware of
> > >> such problems with Linux or Windows guests yet. So they are
> > >> currently unsure if it's a VirtualBox or FreeBSD fault and if
> > >> it's their fault why it works fine with other guests. I'm also
> > >> unsure because I haven't heard of that problem before and now
> > >> multiple people complain. That looks more like a FreeBSD
> > >> related problem on current or stable.
> > >>
> > >> I think it would be good if someone could try to reproduce
> > >> that with emulators/virtualbox-ose-legacy which is 3.2.12 to
> > >> get some vbox dev look into the problem again.
> > >
> > > FreeBSD just started honoring this setting in the BIOS this
> > > week and ignored it previously.  Can you get an acpidump from
> > > within VirtaulBox?  I might be able to point to a bug in it
> > > directly if so.
> >
> > Thanks for the info! I've attached the acpidump and also posted a
> > copy here:
> >
> > http://people.freebsd.org/~swills/vbox-4.0.8.asl.gz
> >
> > in case the mailing list eats it.
>
> Hmm, so there does look to be a reasonable _CRS method.  Oh, I
> think I see what I don't like:
>
>                 DWordMemory (ResourceProducer, PosDecode,
> MinNotFixed, MaxFixed, Cacheable, ReadWrite, 0x00000000,         //
> Granularity
>                     0x00000000,         // Range Minimum
>                     0xFFDFFFFF,         // Range Maximum
>                     0x00000000,         // Translation Offset
>                     0x00000000,         // Length
>                     ,, _Y01, AddressRangeMemory, TypeStatic)
> It should be using MinFixed, not MinNotFixed.

Actually, I am responsible for this:

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/emulators/virtualbox-ose/files/Attic/patch-src-VBox-Devices-PC-vbox.dsl?rev=1.1;content-type=text%2Fplain

I believe this patch was submitted upstream later.

> Author: jhb
> Date: Thu Jul 21 20:43:43 2011
> New Revision: 224254
> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/224254
> 
> Log:
>   Allow non-fixed endpoints for a producer address range if the
>   length of the resource covers the entire range.  Some BIOSes
>   appear to mark endpoints as non-fixed incorrectly (non-fixed
>   endpoints are supposed to be used in _PRS when OSPM is allowed to
>   allocate a certain chunk of address space within a larger range, I
>   don't believe it is supposed to be used for _CRS).

No, _CRS can use MinNotFixed (and MaxNotFixed).  You can find similar 
examples from ACPI spec.

Jung-uk Kim