xen-devel
[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs just becaus
To: |
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Subject: |
[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs just because there's no local APIC |
From: |
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx> |
Date: |
Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:09:17 -0700 |
Cc: |
Xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@xxxxxxxxxx>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>, Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Delivery-date: |
Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:09:52 -0700 |
Envelope-to: |
www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
In-reply-to: |
<m1ab45i8vs.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
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: |
<4A329CF8.4050502@xxxxxxxx> <m1d499yyug.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4A35ACB3.9040501@xxxxxxxx> <m1k53dbwo2.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4A36B3EC.7010004@xxxxxxxx> <m1fxe117n5.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4A37F4AE.5050902@xxxxxxxx> <m1vdmvxe3u.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4A392896.9090408@xxxxxxxx> <m1zlc6memu.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4A3A96BC.1000302@xxxxxxxx> <m1ab45i8vs.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Sender: |
xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1b3pre) Gecko/20090513 Fedora/3.0-2.3.beta2.fc11 Lightning/1.0pre Thunderbird/3.0b2 |
On 06/18/09 13:28, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>> How does Xen handle domU with hardware directly mapped?
>>>
>>>
>> We call that "pci passthrough". Dom0 will bind the gsi to a pirq as
>> usual, and then pass the pirq through to the domU. The domU will bind
>> the pirq to an event channel, which gets mapped to a Linux irq and
>> handled as usual.
>>
>
> Interesting. How does domU find out the pirq -> pci device mapping?
>
Hm, I haven't looked at it closely, but conventionally it would be via
xenbus (which is how all the split frontend-backend drivers communicate).
>> It is already; once the pirq is prepared, the process is the same in
>> both cases.
>>
>
> I 3/4 believe that. map_domain_pirq appears to setup a per domain
> mapping between the hardware vector and the irq name it is known as.
> So I don't see how that works for other domains.
>
> msi is setup on a per domain basis.
>
Ah, OK. The pirq is set up for a specific domain rather than being
global (otherwise it would need some kind of "which domain can access
which pirq" table). dom0 can either create a pirq for itself or someone
else, and the final user of the pirq binds it to a domain-local evtchn.
I think. I really haven't looked into the pci-passthrough parts very
closely yet.
J
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs just because there's no local APIC, (continued)
- [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs just because there's no local APIC, Eric W. Biederman
- [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs just because there's no local APIC, Jeremy Fitzhardinge
- [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs just because there's no local APIC, Eric W. Biederman
- [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs just because there's no local APIC, Jeremy Fitzhardinge
- [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs just because there's no local APIC, Eric W. Biederman
- [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs just because there's no local APIC, Eric W. Biederman
- [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs just because there's no local APIC, Jeremy Fitzhardinge
- [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs just because there's no local APIC, Eric W. Biederman
- [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs just because there's no local APIC, Jeremy Fitzhardinge
- [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs just because there's no local APIC, Eric W. Biederman
- [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs just because there's no local APIC,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <=
- [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs just because there's no local APIC, Eric W. Biederman
- RE: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs just because there's no local APIC, Jiang, Yunhong
- [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs just because there's no local APIC, Eric W. Biederman
[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs just because there's no local APIC, Eric W. Biederman
[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs just because there's no local APIC, Cyrill Gorcunov
Message not available
|
|
|