WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [rfc 00/18] ioemu: use devfn instead of slots as the uni

To: Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [rfc 00/18] ioemu: use devfn instead of slots as the unit for passthrough
From: Yuji Shimada <shimada-yxb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:24:41 +0900
Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 22:25:36 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20090220070657.GA30784@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <C5C2D910.2FFE%keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20090220070657.GA30784@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 18:07:00 +1100
Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 09:38:24AM +0000, Keir Fraser wrote:
> > On 19/02/2009 09:21, "Yuji Shimada" <shimada-yxb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > >> To be honest I am a little confused about what the above maping
> > >> is supposed to achive.
> > > 
> > > Please find the attached figure which shows the interrupt routing in
> > > xen hypervisor.
> > 
> > The point being to deliberately permute the mapping to try to avoid
> > accidental GSI sharing even if there are patterns in DEV:INTX usage (e.g.,
> > all devs use INTA).
> 
> Thanks for the information, especially the diagram. It is very useful.
> 
> Armed with this new kowledge I have a few questions.
> 
> 1. Shimada-san stated that shared GSI are not permitted for
>    pass-through devices. Is it permitted for a GSI to be shared
>    between a pass-through device and a non-pass-through device?

Yes, it is permitted. But guest software will receive spurious
interrupt. So it is not good.

>    The current scheme seems to leave scope for this as
> 
>    gsi 6 A = gsi 13 D = gsi 21 C = gsi 29 B
>    gsi 7 A = gsi 14 D = gsi 22 C = gsi 30 B

Do you mean this?

     Dev 6 INTA = Dev 13 INTD = Dev 21 INTC = Dev 29 INTB -> GSI 40
     Dev 7 INTA = Dev 14 INTD = Dev 22 INTC = Dev 30 INTB -> GSI 44

> 2. In several places in ioemu:io/passthrough.c e_intx is set to 0,
>    corresponding to INTA. Is this because it is virtual and
>    using INTA is convenient? Or is it because it is assumed
>    that the physical device being passed-through is a 0 function
>    (and 0 functions always use INTA) ?

INTx is virtualized, because the single function device normally use
INTA.

When we make multi-function cards appear in guests as multi-function
cards, it is good that virtual INTx reflects the physical INTx. The
reason is one of functions of a device may share INTx of the other
function. In my environment, UHCI(00:1d.0) and EHCI(00:1d.7) share the
same INTA. If physical functions share physical INTx, virtual
functions should share virtual INTx. To achieve this, virtual INTx
needs to reflect the physical INTx.

>    The latter assumption is not valid because even without my pacthes
>    it is possible to pass-through non-0 functions, its just that
>    they end up as the 0th function of the virtual slot in the guest.
> 
> I am now pretty sure that my change leads to incorrect usage of
> hvm_pci_intx_gsi(). Answers to the questions above will help me to
> understand how trivial to fix this is.
> 
> The most difficult cases seem to be 1) sharing of gsi between
> pass-through and non-pass-through devices is not permitted or 2)
> intx used inside ioemu:io/passthrough.c should reflect the physical
> intx. In either case I wonder if a reasonable solution would be to
> just allocate allocate GSI in a non-colliding manner. Say, GSI 16 for
> the first device to ask, 17 for the next one and so on. Or perhaps
> the existing hash + overflow to the next GSI on collision.

The another solution is expanding GSI to 127. I don't sure it is
possible, but sharing virtual GSI will not occur.

Thanks,
--
Yuji Shimada


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>