| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
[Xen-devel] RE: co-assignment needs for PCI devices
Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> "Cui, Dexuan" <dexuan.cui@xxxxxxxxx> 31.03.09 09:48 >>>
>> Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> Also, being not really knowledgeable about all the differences
>>> between PCIe and PCI, I'd appreciate some clarification on why on
>>> PCIe it is possible and correct to do a secondary bus reset when
>>> targeting just the (PCIe) functions of a single device - to me this
>>> seems to imply that there's a one-device-per-non-root-bus
>>> restriction there.
>> According to VT-d spec (section 3.6.1: Identifying Origination of
>> DMA Requests), PCI devices behind the same uppermost PCI/PCI-X
>> bridge must be co-assigned to the same guest. PCIe devices have not
>> such a constraint.
>>
>> FLR (Functional Level Reset) is used to quiesce an assigned device
>> when we destroy a guest or we detach the device from the guest. If a
>> PCIe device has no standard FLR capability, we'll try to use
>> SecondaryBusReset as a way to do FLR. Unluckily, SecondaryBusReset
>> resets all the devices behind the bridge, so for a multi-function
>> PCIe device without FLR capability, we require they have to be
>> co-assigned to the same guest -- certainly this is only for iommu
>> case and for non-iommu case this requirement may be not proper and
>> we shoud fix it...
>
> But - for the sake of my education, if you forgive - you didn't
> answer whether there is a one-device-per-secondary-bus restriction on
> PCIe...
My knowledge to the question is yes, and the "one-device" can be a
single-function device or a multi-function device.
Thanks,
-- Dexuan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home