[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: RFC: PCI devices passthrough on Arm design proposal


  • To: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Bertrand Marquis <Bertrand.Marquis@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 15:51:47 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-GB, en-US
  • Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=arm.com; dkim=pass header.d=arm.com; arc=none
  • Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=lItZYZJBVOe6opiwwJHC8qPt80unMpfxU7ICJXTWOFc=; b=f0c1T2b8pEaJNxvizHuKValGQS3WWvGZOza56ro+bzbG8gcQvtuPCP7bRc/yIb5FPf48QtRs82BztnbWPNP+0WY1gydYmJ7MJ2UonCNrQIh6IYTO9tDCqib9ynXfxZ+mwvaqLRCa1qQPVDMaEbpkhjCf8V1kFu/OzVd3vKCAmpk96L54eIUWn3rhBlwFHYx4gObkTxkf+UHGiAVvUjvl0hVE5KYfr71OamsNLQv8ZibvbZebo/QrRKga1q/XoFiRlDKDmIqmraYLGBMZU4LPFejiJDCg4f2LNkY2l/FjVm//Bh0z/8vHQQuTEnjzMDhDh1+vqSG9kpYmdZciPMQQNQ==
  • Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=ASC/3lORlshQOaOGO9p2Kz+tt2Lo/nbgHi+3uOQYgyfC++F8IESgJNOC7a/Aj7FBztFR0TNSLwUIzsbYCIef3U/p7GahDn89TQwjHCcmDfUlefiQrBBoe96nfQutJKLk4FqgZS8Jmz1kgFHrP1K4oCqXHLSDQvrjjUcsWjq+CHXCvsr6a3h8VM/SBSRxH0saSOJB0MgG6eduNHLxBFJauFlLn8nafE22wLITRfS06iy1CJ/rv/dGgv0x4lNzjIUak3wr5CJc+jhhSMoatc0ICrFb+fnf6QKxbu5Cgdqme+aiEPZC+P5DylnjtvgCMER95J7lNIHbWQWliMchCS1IQg==
  • Authentication-results-original: citrix.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;citrix.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=arm.com;
  • Cc: Rahul Singh <Rahul.Singh@xxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, nd <nd@xxxxxxx>, Julien Grall <julien.grall.oss@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 15:52:09 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
  • Nodisclaimer: true
  • Original-authentication-results: citrix.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;citrix.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=arm.com;
  • Thread-index: AQHWW4kYTVU0hTDyYEitKlUuU5vZlKkKf2uAgAACLICAAOrEgIAAVPWAgAABeYCAAAssAIAAAcuAgAAIDQCAAAHigIAAAiYAgAAEaYCAAAVDgIAAAeSAgAAF4gA=
  • Thread-topic: RFC: PCI devices passthrough on Arm design proposal


> On 17 Jul 2020, at 17:30, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 03:23:57PM +0000, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On 17 Jul 2020, at 17:05, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 02:49:20PM +0000, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On 17 Jul 2020, at 16:41, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 02:34:55PM +0000, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 17 Jul 2020, at 16:06, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 17.07.2020 15:59, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On 17 Jul 2020, at 15:19, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On 17.07.2020 15:14, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 17 Jul 2020, at 10:10, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 16.07.2020 19:10, Rahul Singh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> # Emulated PCI device tree node in libxl:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Libxl is creating a virtual PCI device tree node in the device 
>>>>>>>>>>>> tree to enable the guest OS to discover the virtual PCI during 
>>>>>>>>>>>> guest boot. We introduced the new config option [vpci="pci_ecam"] 
>>>>>>>>>>>> for guests. When this config option is enabled in a guest 
>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration, a PCI device tree node will be created in the guest 
>>>>>>>>>>>> device tree.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I support Stefano's suggestion for this to be an optional thing, 
>>>>>>>>>>> i.e.
>>>>>>>>>>> there to be no need for it when there are PCI devices assigned to 
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> guest anyway. I also wonder about the pci_ prefix here - isn't
>>>>>>>>>>> vpci="ecam" as unambiguous?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> This could be a problem as we need to know that this is required for 
>>>>>>>>>> a guest upfront so that PCI devices can be assigned after using xl. 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I'm afraid I don't understand: When there are no PCI device that get
>>>>>>>>> handed to a guest when it gets created, but it is supposed to be able
>>>>>>>>> to have some assigned while already running, then we agree the option
>>>>>>>>> is needed (afaict). When PCI devices get handed to the guest while it
>>>>>>>>> gets constructed, where's the problem to infer this option from the
>>>>>>>>> presence of PCI devices in the guest configuration?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> If the user wants to use xl pci-attach to attach in runtime a device 
>>>>>>>> to a guest, this guest must have a VPCI bus (even with no devices).
>>>>>>>> If we do not have the vpci parameter in the configuration this use 
>>>>>>>> case will not work anymore.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> That's what everyone looks to agree with. Yet why is the parameter 
>>>>>>> needed
>>>>>>> when there _are_ PCI devices anyway? That's the "optional" that Stefano
>>>>>>> was suggesting, aiui.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I agree in this case the parameter could be optional and only required 
>>>>>> if not PCI device is assigned directly in the guest configuration.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Where will the ECAM region(s) appear on the guest physmap?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Are you going to re-use the same locations as on the physical
>>>>> hardware, or will they appear somewhere else?
>>>> 
>>>> We will add some new definitions for the ECAM regions in the guest physmap 
>>>> declared in xen (include/asm-arm/config.h)
>>> 
>>> I think I'm confused, but that file doesn't contain anything related
>>> to the guest physmap, that's the Xen virtual memory layout on Arm
>>> AFAICT?
>>> 
>>> Does this somehow relate to the physical memory map exposed to guests
>>> on Arm?
>> 
>> Yes it does.
>> We will add new definitions there related to VPCI to reserve some areas for 
>> the VPCI ECAM and the IOMEM areas.
> 
> Yes, that's completely fine and is what's done on x86, but again I
> feel like I'm lost here, this is the Xen virtual memory map, how does
> this relate to the guest physical memory map?

Sorry my bad, we will add values in include/public/arch-arm.h, wrong header :-)

Bertrand


> 
> Roger.


 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.