On 10/04/16 16:59, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 06:24:48PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >> On 09/01/16 15:22, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote: >>> +2.3 PCI only hierarchy >>> +====================== >>> +Legacy PCI devices can be plugged into pcie.0 as Integrated Devices or >>> +into DMI-PCI bridge. PCI-PCI bridges can be plugged into DMI-PCI bridges >>> +and can be nested until a depth of 6-7. DMI-BRIDGES should be plugged >>> +only into pcie.0 bus. >>> + >>> + pcie.0 bus >>> + ---------------------------------------------- >>> + | | >>> + ----------- ------------------ >>> + | PCI Dev | | DMI-PCI BRIDGE | >>> + ---------- ------------------ >>> + | | >>> + ----------- ------------------ >>> + | PCI Dev | | PCI-PCI Bridge | >>> + ----------- ------------------ >>> + | | >>> + ----------- ----------- >>> + | PCI Dev | | PCI Dev | >>> + ----------- ----------- >> >> Works for me, but I would again elaborate a little bit on keeping the >> hierarchy flat. >> >> First, in order to preserve compatibility with libvirt's current >> behavior, let's not plug a PCI device directly in to the DMI-PCI bridge, >> even if that's possible otherwise. Let's just say >> >> - there should be at most one DMI-PCI bridge (if a legacy PCI hierarchy >> is required), > > Why do you suggest this ? If the guest has multiple NUMA nodes > and you're creating a PXB for each NUMA node, then it looks valid > to want to have a DMI-PCI bridge attached to each PXB, so you can > have legacy PCI devices on each NUMA node, instead of putting them > all on the PCI bridge without NUMA affinity.
You are right. I meant the above within one PCI Express root bus. Small correction to your wording though: you don't want to attach the DMI-PCI bridge to the PXB device, but to the extra root bus provided by the PXB. > >> - only PCI-PCI bridges should be plugged into the DMI-PCI bridge, > > What's the rational for that, as opposed to plugging devices directly > into the DMI-PCI bridge which seems to work ? The rationale is that libvirt used to do it like this. And the rationale for *that* is that DMI-PCI bridges cannot accept hotplugged devices, while PCI-PCI bridges can. Technically nothing forbids (AFAICT) cold-plugging PCI devices into DMI-PCI bridges, but this document is expressly not just about technical constraints -- it's a policy document. We want to simplify / trim the supported PCI and PCI Express hierarchies as much as possible. All valid *high-level* topology goals should be permitted / covered one way or another by this document, but in as few ways as possible -- hopefully only one way. For example, if you read the rest of the thread, flat hierarchies are preferred to deeply nested hierarchies, because flat ones save on bus numbers, are easier to setup and understand, probably perform better, and don't lose any generality for cold- or hotplug. Thanks Laszlo
