xen-devel
RE: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs just be
To: |
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx> |
Subject: |
RE: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs just because there's no local APIC |
From: |
"Jiang, Yunhong" <yunhong.jiang@xxxxxxxxx> |
Date: |
Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:10:24 +0800 |
Accept-language: |
en-US |
Acceptlanguage: |
en-US |
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 20:11:50 -0700 |
Envelope-to: |
www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
In-reply-to: |
<m1zlc5f1em.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> <4A3AACFD.5020805@xxxxxxxx> <m1zlc5f1em.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Sender: |
xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
Thread-index: |
AcnwfsNknbEEMrsMTaKVB8BpYdWoMgACtUtw |
Thread-topic: |
[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs just because there's no local APIC |
xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> I/O APICs just because there's no local APIC
>
> Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> 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 currently the GSI pirq is global, while MSI irq is per-domain. In fact,
the irq for gsi is allocated by dom0 itself, and is shared by xen/dom0. I
suspect this is partly because In 2.6.18 kernel, the irq/gsi is really messed
up (I remember there is cleanup happen in 2.6.19).
The domU get the pirq value through pci-backend and pci frontend driver. The
user space tools will grant one pirq to a guest through hypercall and the
permission information is saved in domain's structure.
When we switch to Jeremy's new method, maybe we can make the irq to be alocated
by Xen HV, but I suspect it is ok to be kept still as global.
The MSI is using per-domain pirq.
--jyh
>>
>> I think. I really haven't looked into the pci-passthrough parts very
>> closely yet.
>
> I certainly could not find the code that would let you setup a pirq
> for another domain. In fact the pirq code aka alloc_vectors appears
> to hard code dom0 in Xen 3.4.
>
> pci-passthrough since it is domU, and since you describe it as well
> isolated and comparatively simple should be a shoe in.
>
> Further as you describe it pci-passthrough is a subset of what we
> have to do for dom0. So if we can I would like to see the pci
> passthrough code get merged first.
>
> Eric
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
_______________________________________________
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, 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
|
|
|