Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:21:45PM +0800, Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
>> Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 10:43:47AM +0800, Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
>>>> Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>>>>>> At least dom0 parses this info from DSDT, so we can't have the
>>>>>> assuption whether it is used or not, I think. And I also agree to
>>>>>> add a new physdev_op to handle this case, and it should be better
>>>>>> way to go. Based on this idea, I worked out the patch, attached!
>>>>>> In this patch, we introduced a new physdev_op PHYSDEVOP_setup_gsi
>>>>>> for each GSI setup, and each domain can require to map each GSI
>>>>>> in this case. In addition, I believe it is very safe to port the
>>>>>> hypervisor patch to xen-3.4-x tree and keeps pv_ops dom0 running
>>>>>> on it, since no logic is changed. BTW, I also tested apic and
>>>>>> non-apic cases, they works fine after applying the patches.
>>>>> But I don't think you tested PCI front and PCI back.
>>>>> Mainly these lines worry me (can you inline the patch next time
>>>>> too, please):
>>>>> + map_irq.domid = DOMID_SELF;
>>>>> + map_irq.type = MAP_PIRQ_TYPE_GSI;
>>>>> + map_irq.index = gsi;
>>>>> + map_irq.pirq = irq;
>>>>> + rc = HYPERVISOR_physdev_op(PHYSDEVOP_map_pirq,
>>>>> For PCI passthrough to work, the domid needs to be for the guest
>>>>> domain, while in this case it is set to Dom0.
>>>>> There is already a method of extracting the domain id for PCI
>>>>> devices passed to the guest. Look in the 'xen_create_msi_irq'
>>>> Could you detail the concern ? This hypercall is only related to
>>>> GSI, not MSI, why it has side-effect about pci passthrough ?
>>> This is for PV guests _without_ using QEMU. They are using the PCI
>>> backend to "enable" a device (drivers/xen/pciback and
>>> drivers/pci/xen-pcifront.c). The front and back-end communicate the
>>> IRQ number (GSI) to the guest when enabling a INTx PCI device (not
>>> MSI ones).
>>> Then the PV guest can bind the IRQ (GSI) number to its own event
>>> channel and have fully working PCI device.
>>> With your change, the privileged domain pins the device to itself,
>>> not to other domains.
>> But I think dom0 should own the device first during boot, and then
>> assign it to PV guest when this device is required by pcifront?
>> Basically, we don't know which devices should be reserved for
>> non-previleged domains, right ? So I think the GSI should be
>> initialized and bind to dom0 when dom0 boots? Once the devices is
>> assigned to PV guests, it maybe need to do the unmapping operation
>> about the GSI from dom0 and do mapping for the domU.
> During boot the device can be owned by pciback or by the modele for
> which a
> PCI entry exist. Look for pciback.hide entry.
> There are two modes of execution:
> 1). First being what you described wherein the device initially
> belogs to Dom0. The user unbinds it from the PCI device and
> binds it to the pciback module. At that point, the device is
> disabled and ready for PV guests. When a PV guest starts pciback
> module makes the pci_enable_device call and sets the IRQ, etc
> for the device (for MSI, it obviously gets the IDT value from
> the hypervisor call). 2). Dom0 boots where the user specified on the
> command line pciback.hide=(0000:01:03.1). The pciback owns the
> device (is binded to it) and the native module that would load
> for this PCI device is not called.
> It is correct that the unmapping/mapping and the ownership needs to
> be dynamic. As user could bind to the pciback module, give it to
> guest, kill the guest, then map the PCI device back to dom0, and
> after that repeat the whole thing.
If only the above two cases are needed to support, I think my patch should meet
the requirement. This is because once the device is hidden by the pciback, the
pirq unmap logic should be callled in both cases. So it the mapping for dom0
should be cleared in the operation, so there is not the issue you figured. :-)
Xen-devel mailing list