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

Re: [PATCH v1 3/6] xen/arm: create dom0less virtio-pci DT node



Hi Edgar,

On 25/09/2024 17:49, Edgar E. Iglesias wrote:
On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 10:44 AM Edgar E. Iglesias <edgar.iglesias@xxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 05:38:13PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Edgar,

On 25/09/2024 17:34, Edgar E. Iglesias wrote:
On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 08:44:41AM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi,
On 24/09/2024 17:23, Edgar E. Iglesias wrote:
From: Stewart Hildebrand <stewart.hildebrand@xxxxxxx>

When virtio-pci is specified in the dom0less domU properties,
create a
virtio-pci node in the guest's device tree. Set up an mmio handler
with
a register for the guest to poll when the backend has connected and
virtio-pci bus is ready to be probed. Grant tables may be used by
specifying virtio-pci = "grants";.

[Edgar: Use GPEX PCI INTX interrupt swizzling (from PCI specs).
    Make grants iommu-map cover the entire PCI bus.
    Add virtio-pci-ranges to specify memory-map for direct-mapped
guests.
    Document virtio-pci dom0less fdt bindings.]
Signed-off-by: Stewart Hildebrand <stewart.hildebrand@xxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Edgar E. Iglesias <edgar.iglesias@xxxxxxx>
---
    docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt |  21 +++
    xen/arch/arm/dom0less-build.c         | 238
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    xen/arch/arm/include/asm/kernel.h     |  15 ++
    3 files changed, 274 insertions(+)

diff --git a/docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt
b/docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt
index 3a04f5c57f..82f3bd7026 100644
--- a/docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt
+++ b/docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt
@@ -276,6 +276,27 @@ with the following properties:
        passed through. This option is the default if this property
is missing
        and the user does not provide the device partial device
tree for the domain.
+- virtio-pci

Similar question to the other patches, why is this specific to
virtio PCI?
QEMU (or another device module) is free to emulate whatever it wants
behind
the PCI hosbtridge.

There's no hard limitatino to only virtio-pci devices it's more of a
recommendation that PVH guests should not use "emulated" devices but
there's nothing stopping it.

Could you provide a bit more details where this requirement is coming
from?
For instance, I would expect we would need to do some emulation to boot
Windows on Arm.


I see. I guess it just came from my mental model, I thought part of the
philosophy behind PVH was to avoid emulated devices and use
paravirualized (virtio or something else) or passthrough whereever
possible (except for the basic set of devices needed like vGIC, vuart,
MMU).


For  example, we would recommend users to use virtio-net in favor of an
emulated eepro1000 or whatever other NIC models available in QEMU.

Indeed. I would always recommend user to use virtio-net over eepro1000.

But there is no hard requirement nor limitation, a user can connect any
available PCI device from the QEMU set.

We need to be clear about what we are exposing to the guest. With this patch we will describe a PCI hostbridge in Device Tree (well it is an empty region we hope the Device Model to emulate at some point). But the hypervisor will not create the device model. Instead, you expect the user/integrator to have extra script to launch a Device Model (So it may not even be a hostbridge).


Another thing we're looking to do is to minimize the QEMU build (Kconfig +
configure flags) to create a small build with only the stuff needed for
virtio-pci.

It is nice to have a cut down version of QEMU :). However, Xen doesn't care about the device model used for the emulation. I have seen some specialized DM in the wild (and used them while I was working on disaggregating the DM).

Anyway, while I understand this approach works in tailored environment, I am not convinced this works for a more general approach. The two options I would rather consider are: 1. Allow the device model to receive access for a single PCI device (IOW hook into vPCI). 2. Find a way to let the user provide the binding (maybe in a partial device-tree) + the list of Interrupts/MMIO that would be emulated by QEMU.

The second approach might be another way to get a second hostbridge in your use case while giving a bit more flexibility in what can be done (thinking about disagreggated environment).

Cheers,

--
Julien Grall




 


Rackspace

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