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] Nvidia, Xen, and Vt-d

To: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Nvidia, Xen, and Vt-d
From: Michael J Coss <mjcoss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 05:46:13 -0400
Delivery-date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 02:46:44 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4AA80A47.9000707@xxxxxxxx>
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: <C6CD2C32.13F3A%keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4AA80A47.9000707@xxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
On 09/09/09 01:56, Keir Fraser wrote:
On 09/09/2009 09:47, "Michael J Coss" <mjcoss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I've tried 3.4.1, and the lastest xen-unstable.  I've tried the pv-ops
git tree as I really need a 2.6.31 dom0 kernel for other reasons, but
for the moment I'd just like to get to the point where I have Xen, and
dom0 and Nvidia playing nicely with one another, so I can move on to
working on Vt-d and graphic pass through.

Any suggestions?
Unless you really must have 2.6.30+, I'd recommend the 2.6.27 tree and
patchqueue from http://xenbits.xensource.com/XCI. Otherwise you are likely
to have to get your hands fairly dirty with pv_ops. For example, afaik
starting an X server on pv_ops is still pretty ambitious on some systems.

Starting X in dom0 seems to work OK for Intel and ATI systems, at least;
I expect most DRM drivers would work OK if they're well-behaved because
we're hooking AGP memory accesses, etc.  However, the proprietary Nvidia
drivers are problematic, though I gather there are some patches floating
around for them.

Unfortunately the AGP hooks are being removed (some years after Keir
first added them, and just as they have a user according to their
original intent) in favour of making each driver use the DMA API to do
the appropriate phys<->bus conversions.  So far, only the Intel driver
has been converted, and only when Intel IOMMU is enabled.  However, I
didn't get any objection from the DRM folks about making it
unconditional or adding it to new drivers as needed.

    J
I suspected as much, although I don't understand the origin of the lspci discrepancies between booting with/without the hypervisor. It seems to me that there is some problem with Xen's view of the PCI bus, as well as the fact that the Nvidia driver is trying to access something outside of the hooked APIs. The graphics cards in the system are the dual GPU, dual slot cards, and maybe this is contributing to the problem. I'm going to see about getting some other single slot Nvidia card and see if the same issue happens. I may pick up some ATI cards as well.

---Michael J Coss

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

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