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/
Home Products Support Community News


Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0 of 5] Patches for PCI passthrough with modified

To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0 of 5] Patches for PCI passthrough with modified E820.
From: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 09:42:04 +0100
Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 01:42:51 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <patchbomb.1302207921@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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>
Organization: Citrix Systems, Inc.
References: <patchbomb.1302207921@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 21:25 +0100, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:

> This set of RFC patches allows a PV domain to see the machine's
> E820 and figure out where the "PCI I/O" gap is and match it with the
> reality.

Does the domain builder obey this memory map at all or is it a PV guests
responsibility to take the linear p2m allocation it starts with a move
stuff around to fit the map?

> To use this patchset, the guest config file has to have the parameter
> 'pci_hole=1' enabled (hmm, any ideas for a better name?) 

Is there any harm in just doing this for any guest configuration which
has a "pci" option specified? (including the empty list "pci=[]" to
handle guests which only want hotplug capabilities not an initial set of

Or could we even go so far as to consider always doing this

Will older pvops and/or classic-Xen kernels or other PV OSes misbehave
if we do either of these? is having a default-on option which these
users need to force off better or worse than a default-off option which
the opposite set of people need to enable?


Xen-devel mailing list

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