On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 02:47:38PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-06-26 at 09:28 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > I would advocate a more dynamic idea of GUEST_MMIO_* so that the toolstack
> > can allocate those with headroom. Perhaps stash it at the far far end
> > of the guest a
On Fri, 2015-06-26 at 09:28 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> I would advocate a more dynamic idea of GUEST_MMIO_* so that the toolstack
> can allocate those with headroom. Perhaps stash it at the far far end
> of the guest accessible memory? But that would require an 64-bit capable
> OS which
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 01:41:08PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-06-26 at 17:27 +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
>
> > I still need to implement a domctl xc_domain_query_memory_mapping. If
> > reserve a memory of
> > GUEST_MMIO_HOLE_SIZE from GUEST_MMIO_HOLE_ADDR in arch-arm.h xl tools
> >
On Fri, 2015-06-26 at 17:27 +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
> I still need to implement a domctl xc_domain_query_memory_mapping. If
> reserve a memory of
> GUEST_MMIO_HOLE_SIZE from GUEST_MMIO_HOLE_ADDR in arch-arm.h xl tools
> need some
> way to query which range is allocated and which is free in th
On Friday 26 June 2015 02:39 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Fri, 2015-06-26 at 14:20 +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
On Friday 26 June 2015 01:02 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Fri, 2015-06-26 at 07:37 +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
On Thursday 25 June 2015 10:56 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Thu, Jun
On Fri, 2015-06-26 at 14:20 +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
>
> On Friday 26 June 2015 01:02 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Fri, 2015-06-26 at 07:37 +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
> >> On Thursday 25 June 2015 10:56 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 01:21:28PM +0100, Ian Campbe
On Friday 26 June 2015 01:02 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Fri, 2015-06-26 at 07:37 +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
On Thursday 25 June 2015 10:56 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 01:21:28PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Thu, 2015-06-25 at 17:29 +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
On
On Fri, 2015-06-26 at 07:37 +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
>
> On Thursday 25 June 2015 10:56 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 01:21:28PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2015-06-25 at 17:29 +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
> >>> On Thursday 25 June 2015 02:41 PM, Ian Camp
On Thursday 25 June 2015 10:56 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 01:21:28PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Thu, 2015-06-25 at 17:29 +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
On Thursday 25 June 2015 02:41 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Thu, 2015-06-25 at 13:14 +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 01:21:28PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-06-25 at 17:29 +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday 25 June 2015 02:41 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2015-06-25 at 13:14 +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
> > >> On Wednesday 17 June 2015 07:59 PM, Ian Campbell
On Thu, 2015-06-25 at 17:29 +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
>
> On Thursday 25 June 2015 02:41 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-06-25 at 13:14 +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
> >> On Wednesday 17 June 2015 07:59 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 07:14 -0700, Manish Jaggi wrote:
> >
On Thursday 25 June 2015 02:41 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Thu, 2015-06-25 at 13:14 +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
On Wednesday 17 June 2015 07:59 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 07:14 -0700, Manish Jaggi wrote:
On Wednesday 17 June 2015 06:43 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Wed, 2015-0
On Thu, 2015-06-25 at 13:14 +0530, Manish Jaggi wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 17 June 2015 07:59 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 07:14 -0700, Manish Jaggi wrote:
> >> On Wednesday 17 June 2015 06:43 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 13:58 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wro
On Wednesday 17 June 2015 07:59 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 07:14 -0700, Manish Jaggi wrote:
On Wednesday 17 June 2015 06:43 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 13:58 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
Yes, pciback is already capable of doing that, see
drivers/xen/x
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 09:44:31AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-06-22 at 14:33 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 03:35:02PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > On Wed, 17 Jun 2015, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 07:14 -0700, Manish Ja
On Mon, 2015-06-22 at 14:33 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 03:35:02PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Jun 2015, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 07:14 -0700, Manish Jaggi wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wednesday 17 June 2015 06:43 AM, Ian Ca
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 03:35:02PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2015, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 07:14 -0700, Manish Jaggi wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wednesday 17 June 2015 06:43 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 13:58 +0100, Stefano Stabellin
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 03:26:10PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 15:18 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Jun 2015, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 14:40 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 17 Jun 2015, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > > > On
On Wed, 17 Jun 2015, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 07:14 -0700, Manish Jaggi wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday 17 June 2015 06:43 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 13:58 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > >> Yes, pciback is already capable of doing that, see
> > >> driv
On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 07:14 -0700, Manish Jaggi wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 17 June 2015 06:43 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 13:58 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> >> Yes, pciback is already capable of doing that, see
> >> drivers/xen/xen-pciback/conf_space.c
> >>
> >>> I am not
On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 15:18 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2015, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 14:40 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > On Wed, 17 Jun 2015, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 13:53 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > > On W
On Wed, 17 Jun 2015, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 14:40 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Jun 2015, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 13:53 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 17 Jun 2015, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 2015-06-16 at 18
On Wednesday 17 June 2015 06:43 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 13:58 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
Yes, pciback is already capable of doing that, see
drivers/xen/xen-pciback/conf_space.c
I am not sure if the pci-back driver can query the guest memory map. Is there
an exist
On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 14:40 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2015, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 13:53 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > On Wed, 17 Jun 2015, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2015-06-16 at 18:16 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > > I wr
On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 13:58 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> Yes, pciback is already capable of doing that, see
> drivers/xen/xen-pciback/conf_space.c
>
> > I am not sure if the pci-back driver can query the guest memory map. Is
> > there an existing hypercall ?
>
> No, that is missing. I thi
On Wed, 17 Jun 2015, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 13:53 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Jun 2015, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2015-06-16 at 18:16 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > I wrote this before reading the rest of the thread with your alternative
>
On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 13:53 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2015, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Tue, 2015-06-16 at 18:16 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > I wrote this before reading the rest of the thread with your alternative
> > > suggestion. Both approaches can work, maybe
Could you please use plain text emails? See how bad it looks in my
client.
One comment below.
On Tue, 16 Jun 2015, Manish Jaggi wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 June 2015 10:28 AM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>
> On Tue, 16 Jun 2015, Manish Jaggi wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 16 June 2015 09:21 AM, Roger Pau Monné
On 17/06/15 13:53, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>> That's for guests, for dom0 Xen also need to be aware of changes to the
>> BAR registers of the real physical devices since it needs to know the
>> real hardware values in order to point guest p2m mappings at them.
>
> I think that in the Dom0 case,
On Wed, 17 Jun 2015, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-06-16 at 18:16 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > I wrote this before reading the rest of the thread with your alternative
> > suggestion. Both approaches can work, maybe it is true that having the
> > guest requesting mappings is better. A
On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 13:11 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Ian,
>
> On 17/06/15 11:08, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Tue, 2015-06-16 at 18:16 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> >> I wrote this before reading the rest of the thread with your alternative
> >> suggestion. Both approaches can work, may
Hi Ian,
On 17/06/15 11:08, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-06-16 at 18:16 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>> I wrote this before reading the rest of the thread with your alternative
>> suggestion. Both approaches can work, maybe it is true that having the
>> guest requesting mappings is bette
On Tue, 2015-06-16 at 18:16 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> I wrote this before reading the rest of the thread with your alternative
> suggestion. Both approaches can work, maybe it is true that having the
> guest requesting mappings is better. And we should certainly do the same
> thing for PV
On Tuesday 16 June 2015 10:28 AM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2015, Manish Jaggi wrote:
On Tuesday 16 June 2015 09:21 AM, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
El 16/06/15 a les 18.13, Stefano Stabellini ha escrit:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2015, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Thu, 2015-06-11 at 07:25 -0400, Ju
On Tue, 16 Jun 2015, Manish Jaggi wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 June 2015 09:21 AM, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > El 16/06/15 a les 18.13, Stefano Stabellini ha escrit:
> > > On Thu, 11 Jun 2015, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2015-06-11 at 07:25 -0400, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > > > Hi Ian,
> > > > >
>
On Tue, 16 Jun 2015, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> El 16/06/15 a les 18.13, Stefano Stabellini ha escrit:
> > On Thu, 11 Jun 2015, Ian Campbell wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2015-06-11 at 07:25 -0400, Julien Grall wrote:
> >>> Hi Ian,
> >>>
> >>> On 11/06/2015 04:56, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-06-10
On Tuesday 16 June 2015 09:21 AM, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
El 16/06/15 a les 18.13, Stefano Stabellini ha escrit:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2015, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Thu, 2015-06-11 at 07:25 -0400, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Ian,
On 11/06/2015 04:56, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Wed, 2015-06-10 at 15:21 -0400
El 16/06/15 a les 18.13, Stefano Stabellini ha escrit:
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2015, Ian Campbell wrote:
>> On Thu, 2015-06-11 at 07:25 -0400, Julien Grall wrote:
>>> Hi Ian,
>>>
>>> On 11/06/2015 04:56, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Wed, 2015-06-10 at 15:21 -0400, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
On Thu, 11 Jun 2015, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-06-11 at 11:05 +0200, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > El 10/06/15 a les 21.21, Julien Grall ha escrit:
> > >> If there is a reason for this restriction/trade off then it should be
> > >> spelled out as part of the design document, as should other s
On Thu, 11 Jun 2015, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-06-11 at 07:25 -0400, Julien Grall wrote:
> > Hi Ian,
> >
> > On 11/06/2015 04:56, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2015-06-10 at 15:21 -0400, Julien Grall wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> On 10/06/2015 08:45, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > 4.
On 16/06/2015 08:02, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
Hello,
El 16/06/15 a les 7.42, Manish Jaggi ha escrit:
[...]
Beware that the 1:1 mapping doesn't fit with the current guest memory
layout which is pre-defined at Xen build time. So you would also have
to make it dynamically or decide to use the same
Hello,
El 16/06/15 a les 7.42, Manish Jaggi ha escrit:
[...]
Beware that the 1:1 mapping doesn't fit with the current guest memory
layout which is pre-defined at Xen build time. So you would also have
to make it dynamically or decide to use the same memory layout as the
host.
>
On Friday 12 June 2015 01:32 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Thu, 2015-06-11 at 14:38 -0700, Manish Jaggi wrote:
On Wednesday 10 June 2015 12:21 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi,
On 10/06/2015 08:45, Ian Campbell wrote:
4. DomU access / assignment PCI device
--
When
On Fri, 2015-06-12 at 07:41 -0400, Julien Grall wrote:
> I was suggesting to expose the host layout to the guest layout (similar
> to e820).
We do this on x86 only as a workaround for broken hardware (essentially
magic system devices which bypass the IOMMU).
We shouldn't do this on ARM by defau
On 12/06/2015 04:32, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Thu, 2015-06-11 at 14:38 -0700, Manish Jaggi wrote:
On Wednesday 10 June 2015 12:21 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi,
On 10/06/2015 08:45, Ian Campbell wrote:
4. DomU access / assignment PCI device
--
When a device i
On Thu, 2015-06-11 at 14:38 -0700, Manish Jaggi wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 10 June 2015 12:21 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 10/06/2015 08:45, Ian Campbell wrote:
> >>> 4. DomU access / assignment PCI device
> >>> --
> >>> When a device is attached to a
On Wednesday 10 June 2015 12:21 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi,
On 10/06/2015 08:45, Ian Campbell wrote:
4. DomU access / assignment PCI device
--
When a device is attached to a domU, provision has to be made such that
it can
access the MMIO space of the device
On Thu, 2015-06-11 at 11:05 +0200, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> El 10/06/15 a les 21.21, Julien Grall ha escrit:
> >> If there is a reason for this restriction/trade off then it should be
> >> spelled out as part of the design document, as should other such design
> >> decisions (which would include ex
On Thu, 2015-06-11 at 07:25 -0400, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Ian,
>
> On 11/06/2015 04:56, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-06-10 at 15:21 -0400, Julien Grall wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 10/06/2015 08:45, Ian Campbell wrote:
> 4. DomU access / assignment PCI device
>
Hi Ian,
On 11/06/2015 04:56, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Wed, 2015-06-10 at 15:21 -0400, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi,
On 10/06/2015 08:45, Ian Campbell wrote:
4. DomU access / assignment PCI device
--
When a device is attached to a domU, provision has to be made such
El 10/06/15 a les 21.21, Julien Grall ha escrit:
>> If there is a reason for this restriction/trade off then it should be
>> spelled out as part of the design document, as should other such design
>> decisions (which would include explaining where this differs from how
>> things work for x86 why th
On Wed, 2015-06-10 at 15:21 -0400, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 10/06/2015 08:45, Ian Campbell wrote:
> >> 4. DomU access / assignment PCI device
> >> --
> >> When a device is attached to a domU, provision has to be made such that
> >> it can
> >> access the
Hi,
On 10/06/2015 08:45, Ian Campbell wrote:
4. DomU access / assignment PCI device
--
When a device is attached to a domU, provision has to be made such that
it can
access the MMIO space of the device and xen is able to identify the mapping
between guest bdf
On Mon, 2015-06-08 at 00:52 -0700, Manish Jaggi wrote:
Thanks, the general shape of this is looking good.
It'd be a lot easier to read if you could arrange not to mangle the
whitespaced/wrapping when sending though.
> PCI Pass-through in Xen ARM
> --
>
> Index
> 1. Backg
> Kulkarni, Ganapatrao; Kumar, Vijaya; Kapoor, Prasun
> Subject: [Xen-devel] PCI Passthrough ARM Design : Draft1
>
> PCI Pass-through in Xen ARM
> --
>
> Index
> 1. Background
> 2. Basic PCI Support in Xen ARM
> 2.1 pci_hostbridge and pci_hostb
n.org; Ian Campbell; Stefano Stabellini; Vijay Kilari;
Kulkarni, Ganapatrao; Kumar, Vijaya; Kapoor, Prasun
Subject: [Xen-devel] PCI Passthrough ARM Design : Draft1
PCI Pass-through in Xen ARM
--
Index
1. Background
2. Basic PCI Support in Xen ARM
2.1 pci_hostbridg
PCI Pass-through in Xen ARM
--
Index
1. Background
2. Basic PCI Support in Xen ARM
2.1 pci_hostbridge and pci_hostbridge_ops
2.2 PHYSDEVOP_pci_host_bridge_add hypercall
3. Dom0 Access PCI devices
4. DomU assignment of PCI device
5. NUMA and PCI passthrough
6. DomU pci devi
57 matches
Mail list logo
