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] [PATCH, RFC 0/7] PCI multi-segment support

To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH, RFC 0/7] PCI multi-segment support
From: Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2011 15:05:35 +0100
Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Mon, 05 Sep 2011 07:06:47 -0700
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:thread-topic :thread-index:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=lSu01BtVKiUXkR3Fe4jTG3g9Y5kscEquaCOsD+rbP38=; b=UAPEQtJonDKZE2J7rLsZYC/BApCMCthCygUqBvdGytXmPierNjV2rbLHAG4WPE0fw1 IWKXSB2hvmUTGtmotz7oVG/RuJNf1rZWeoN5SOBoxodR7b4+EHRy1mNsRbzlb4Pr6R7H GAlmrV2OZLZdNPkCdQCJjXnIQ21EZXuCPeyH8=
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4E64EF860200007800054B03@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: Acxr1OGniQTFIRBYDEOgZdehj2Yy7w==
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [PATCH, RFC 0/7] PCI multi-segment support
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.30.0.110427
On 05/09/2011 14:49, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

>>>> On 05.09.11 at 15:33, Keir Fraser <keir.xen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 05/09/2011 14:18, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>>>>>> On 25.08.11 at 16:54, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> In order for Xen to be able to boot on systems with multiple PCI segments
>>>> (also called domains), a number of changes are necessary to the
>>>> hypervisor, the hypercall interface, the tools, and the Dom0 kernel, as
>>>> in most code paths and definitions there were not even provisions for
>>>> passing a segment number.
>>>> 
>>>> The hypercall interface changes may need some discussion before
>>>> applying the patches, in particular
>>>> 
>>>> - whether the way PHYSDEVOP_map_pirq gets re-used is acceptable,
>>>>   or whether alternatively we should define a replacement one sub-
>>>>   hypercall
>>>> - whether PHYSDEVOP_manage_pci_* should be deprecated
>>>> - whether the bit assignments for the four uses of machine_bdf in
>>>>   the domctl interface can be re-defined
>>> 
>>> No comment from either of you on the proposed changes?
>> 
>> I'm personally fine with folding segment into the bus field. Otherwise we
>> just end up with more compat cruft.
>> 
>> I don't have an opinion on the PHYSDEVOP_manage_pci_* hypercalls. In fact I
>> don't know much about them at all.
>> 
>> I've always considered the domctl interface subject to change, but you don't
>> seem to redefine anything that already exists? You just give meaning to bits
>> 24-31 of an existing 32-bit parameter?
> 
> I'm trying to avoid incompatible changes when possible (due to
> out-of-tree consumers like libvirt,

I think the intention is to maintain API compatibility for libxenlight, and
have out-of-tree tool stacks/librariues build on top of that.

I think there are libvirt bindings to libxenlight now, for example?

My conclusion would be you can do the cleaner change to domctl. Interested
in Ian Jackson's view however.

 -- Keir

> and due to the hacks required to
> use domctl interfaces from the kernel). Now here we need 16 bits, but
> have two sets of 8 (at bottom and top), hence I'd favor doing an
> incompatible change here (moving the bdf bits down to 0...15, and
> using 16...31 for the segment), perhaps renaming the field to
> machine_sbdf (to force compile-time noticing of the change at least
> for those that actually use our headers). But as the odd bit assignment
> could have other (hidden) reasons I coded things first to not do any
> re-assignments.
> 
> Jan
> 



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