On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 12:06:49PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 23.08.2013, at 06:29, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>
> > On 08/19/2013 07:01 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 06:10:01PM +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> >>> On 08/19/2013 05:54 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 05:44:04PM +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> >>>>> On 08/19/2013 05:35 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 06:51:32PM +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> >>>>>>> On PPC64 systems MSI Messages are translated to system IRQ in a PCI
> >>>>>>> host bridge. This is already supported for emulated MSI/MSIX but
> >>>>>>> not for irqfd where the current QEMU allocates IRQ numbers from
> >>>>>>> irqchip and maps MSIMessages to those IRQ in the host kernel.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The patch extends irqfd support in order to avoid unnecessary
> >>>>>>> mapping and reuse the one which already exists in a PCI host bridge.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Specifically, a map_msi callback is added to PCIBus and
> >>>>>>> pci_bus_map_msi()
> >>>>>>> to PCI API. The latter tries a bus specific map_msi and falls back to
> >>>>>>> the default kvm_irqchip_add_msi_route() if none set.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <a...@ozlabs.ru>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The mapping (irq # within data) is really KVM on PPC64 specific,
> >>>>>> isn't it?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So why not implement
> >>>>>> kvm_irqchip_add_msi_route(kvm_state, msg);
> >>>>>> to simply return msg.data on PPC64?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> How exactly? Please give some details. kvm_irqchip_add_msi_route() is
> >>>>> implemented in kvm-all.c once for all platforms so hack it right there?
> >>>>
> >>>> You can add the map_msi callback in kvm state,
> >>>> then just call it if it's set, right?
> >>>>
> >>>>> I thought we discussed all of this already and decided that this thing
> >>>>> should go to PCI host bridge and by default PHB's map_msi() callback
> >>>>> should
> >>>>> just call kvm_irqchip_add_msi_route(). This is why I touched i386.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Things have changed since then?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I think pci_bus_map_msi was there since day 1, it's not like
> >>>> we are going back and forth on it, right?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Sorry, I am not following you. pci_bus_map_msi() is added by this patch.
> >>> Where was it from day 1?
> >>
> >> I'm sorry. I merely meant that it's there in v1 of this patch.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> I always felt it's best to have irqfd isolated to kvm somehow
> >>>> rather than have hooks in pci code, I just don't know enough
> >>>> about kvm on ppc to figure out the right way to do this.
> >>>> With your latest patches I think this is becoming clearer ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Well... This encoding (irq# as msg.data) is used in spapr_pci.c in any
> >>> case, whether it is KVM or TCG.
> >>
> >> Not only on TCG. All emulated devices merely do a write to send an MSI,
> >> this is exactly what happens with real hardware. If this happens to
> >> land in the MSI region, you get an interrupt. The concept of mapping
> >> msi to irq normally doesn't belong in devices/pci core, it's something
> >> done by APIC or pci host.
> >>
> >> For KVM, we have this special hook where devices allocate a route and
> >> then Linux can send an interrupt to guest quickly bypassing QEMU. It
> >> was originally designed for paravirtualization, so it doesn't support
> >> strange cases such as guest programming MSI to write into guest memory,
> >> which is possible with real PCI devices. However, no one seems to do
> >> these hacks in practice, so in practice this works for
> >> some other cases, such as device assignment.
> >>
> >> That's why we have kvm_irqchip_add_msi_route in some places
> >> in code - it's so specific devices implemented by
> >> Linux can take this shortcut (it does not make sense for
> >> devices implemented by qemu).
> >> So the way I see it, it's not a PCI thing at all, it's
> >> a KVM specific implementation, so it seems cleaner if
> >> it's isolated there.
> >
> > The only PCI thing here (at least for spapr) is the way we translate
> > MSIMessage to IRQ number. Besides that, yeah, there is no good reason to
> > poison pci.c or spapr_pci.c with KVM.
> >
> >
> >> Now, we have this allocate/free API for reasons that
> >> have to do with the API of kvm on x86. spapr doesn't need to
> >> allocate/free resources, so just shortcut free and
> >> do map when we allocate.
> >>
> >> Doesn't this sound reasonable?
> >
> >
> > Yes, pretty much. But it did not help to get this patch accepted at the
> > first place and my vote costs a little here :)
> >
> >
> >>> I am confused.
> >>> 1.5 month ago Anthony suggested (I'll answer to that mail to bring that
> >>> discussion up) to do this thing as:
> >>>
> >>>> So what this should look like is:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) A PCI bus function to do the MSI -> virq mapping
> >>>> 2) On x86 (and e500), this is implemented by calling
> >>> kvm_irqchip_add_msi_route()
> >>>> 3) On pseries, this just returns msi->data
> >>>>
> >>>> Perhaps (2) can just be the default PCI bus implementation to simplify
> >>> things.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Now it is not right. Anthony, please help.
> >>
> >> That's right, you implemented exactly what Anthony suggested. Now that
> >> you did, I think I see an even better, more contained way to do this.
> >> And it's not much of a change as compared to what you have, is it?
> >>
> >> I'm sorry if this looks like you are given a run-around,
> >> not everyone understands how spapr works, sometimes
> >> it takes a full implementation to make everyone understand
> >> the issues.
> >>
> >> But I agree, let's see what Anthony thinks, maybe I
> >> misunderstood how spapr works.
> >
> >
> > Anthony, Alex (Graf), ping, please?
>
> I think it makes sense to just have this special case be treated as a special
> case. Why don't we just add a new global check in kvm.c similar to
> kvm_gsi_routing_enabled() for kvm_gsi_routing_linear(). This should probably
> disable routing_enabled(), but we add a new check for
> kvm_gsi_routing_linear().
>
> So basically we would end up with something like
>
> diff --git a/kvm-all.c b/kvm-all.c
> index 716860f..ca3251e 100644
> --- a/kvm-all.c
> +++ b/kvm-all.c
> @@ -1190,6 +1190,10 @@ int kvm_irqchip_add_msi_route(KVMState *s, MSIMessage
> msg)
> struct kvm_irq_routing_entry kroute = {};
> int virq;
>
> + if (kvm_gsi_routing_linear()) {
> + return msi.data & 0xffff;
> + }
> +
> if (!kvm_gsi_routing_enabled()) {
> return -ENOSYS;
> }
>
> I agree that we should isolate kvm specifics to kvm code when we can.
>
>
> Alex
This makes sense to me.
