On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 11:34:23AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 07:00:38PM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 04:28:33PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 12:15:22AM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 05:03:18PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 11:33:37PM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 01:10:38PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 04:51:02PM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> > > > > > > > qemu already almost supports PCI domains; that is, several
> > > > > > > > entirely
> > > > > > > > independent PCI host bridges on the same machine. However, a
> > > > > > > > bug in
> > > > > > > > pci_bus_new_inplace() means that every host bridge gets
> > > > > > > > assigned domain
> > > > > > > > number zero and so can't be properly distinguished. This patch
> > > > > > > > fixes the
> > > > > > > > bug, giving each new host bridge a new domain number.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > OK, but I'd like to see the whole picture.
> > > > > > > How does the guest detect multiple domains,
> > > > > > > and how does it access them?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For the pseries machine, which is what I'm concerned with, each host
> > > > > > bridge is advertised through the device tree passed to the guest.
> > > > >
> > > > > Could you explain please?
> > > > > What generates the device tree and passes it to the guest?
> > > >
> > > > In the case of the pseries machine, it is generated from hw/spapr.c
> > > > and loaded into memory for use by the firmware and/or the kernel.
> > > >
> > > > > > That gives the necessary handles and addresses for accesing config
> > > > > > space and memory and IO windows for each host bridge.
> > > > >
> > > > > I see. I think maybe a global counter in the common code
> > > > > is not exactly the best solution in the general case.
> > > >
> > > > Well, which general case do you have in mind. Since by definition,
> > > > PCI domains are entirely independent from each other, domain numbers
> > > > are essentially arbitrary as long as they're unique - simply a
> > > > convention which makes it easier to describe which host bridge devices
> > > > belong on. I don't see an obvious approach which is better than a
> > > > global counter, or least not one that doesn't involve a significant
> > > > rewrite of the PCI subsystem.
> > >
> > > OK, let's make sure I understand. On your system 'domain numbers'
> > > are completely invisible to the guest, right? You only need them to
> > > address devices on qemu monitor ...
> >
> > Well.. the qemu domain number is not officially visible to the guest.
> > However the handles that are visible to the guest will need to be
> > derived from some sort of unique domain number.
> >
> > > For that, I'm trying to move away from using a domain number. Would
> > > it be possible to simply give bus an id, and use bus=<id> instead?
> >
> > It might be. In this case we should remove the domain numbers (as
> > used by pci_find_domain()) from qemu entirely, since they are broken
> > as they stand without this patch.
> >
> > > BTW, how does a linux guest number domains?
> > > Would it make sense to match that?
> >
> > I'll look into it. It would be nice to have them match, obviously but
> > I'm not sure if there will be a way to do this that's both reasonable
> > and robust. I suspect they will match already though not in a
> > terribly robust way, at least for the pseries machine, becuase qemu
> > will create the host bridge nodes in the same order as domain number,
> > and I suspect Linux will just allocate domain numbers sequentially in
> > that same order.
>
> OK, so what's the plan at the moment?
Well, you tell me...
> How about we pass domain number from callers,
>From callers of what exactly?
> and make sure buses are enumerated in this order?
> This will make sure linux enumerates them in
> the same order.
I don't think we can do that in general. After all enumeration order
of domains is essentially a guest internal matter, which we can only
guess at.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
