[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC][v2][PATCH 08/14] tools: extend xc_assign_device() to support rdm reservation policy
On 2015/6/7 19:27, Wei Liu wrote: On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 10:58:31AM +0800, Chen, Tiejun wrote:On 2015/6/3 0:36, Wei Liu wrote:On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 05:35:08PM +0800, Tiejun Chen wrote:This patch passes rdm reservation policy to xc_assign_device() so the policy is checked when assigning devices to a VM. Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@xxxxxxxxx> --- tools/libxc/include/xenctrl.h | 3 ++- tools/libxc/xc_domain.c | 4 +++- tools/libxl/libxl_pci.c | 11 ++++++++++- tools/libxl/xl_cmdimpl.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++---- tools/libxl/xl_cmdtable.c | 2 +-Where is document for the new options you added to xl pci commands?Looks I'm missing to describe something specific to pci-attach? diff --git a/docs/man/xl.pod.1 b/docs/man/xl.pod.1 index 4eb929d..2ebfd54 100644 --- a/docs/man/xl.pod.1 +++ b/docs/man/xl.pod.1 @@ -1368,10 +1368,15 @@ it will also attempt to re-bind the device to its original driver, making it usable by Domain 0 again. If the device is not bound to pciback, it will return success. -=item B<pci-attach> I<domain-id> I<BDF> +=item B<pci-attach> I<domain-id> I<BDF> I<rdm policy>The way you put it here suggests that "rdm policy" is mandatory. I don't think this is the case? If it is not mandatory, write [I<rdm>]. Yes, thanks for you correction. Hot-plug a new pass-through pci device to the specified domain. B<BDF> is the PCI Bus/Device/Function of the physical device to pass-through. +B<rdm policy> is about how to handle conflict between reserving reserved device +memory and guest address space. "strict" means an unsolved conflict leads to +immediate VM crash, while "relaxed" allows VM moving forward with a warning +message thrown out. Here "strict" is default. + =item B<pci-detach> [I<-f>] I<domain-id> I<BDF>BTW you might want to consider rearrange patches in this series so thatYes, this is really what I intend to do.you keep the tree bisectable.Overall, I can separate this series as several parts, #1. Introduce our policy configuration on tools side #2. Interact with Hypervisor to get rdm info #3. Implement our policy with rdm info on tool side #4. Make hvmloader to align our policy If you already see something obviously wrong, let me know.I think all toolstack patches should come after hypervisor and hvmloader patches. And then within toolstack patches, libxc patches should come before libxl patches, libxl patches should come before xl patches. The pattern is clear. Patches that are late in the series make use of functionalities provided by early patches. Breaking this pattern is definitely going to break bisection. I tried to rearrange these patches as follows: #1. hypervisor 0001-xen-introduce-XENMEM_reserved_device_memory_map.patch 0002-xen-x86-p2m-introduce-set_identity_p2m_entry.patch 0003-xen-vtd-create-RMRR-mapping.patch 0004-xen-passthrough-extend-hypercall-to-support-rdm-rese.patch 0005-xen-enable-XENMEM_memory_map-in-hvm.patch #2. hvmloader 0006-hvmloader-get-guest-memory-map-into-memory_map.patch 0007-hvmloader-pci-skip-reserved-ranges.patch 0008-hvmloader-e820-construct-guest-e820-table.patch #3. tools/libxc 0009-tools-libxc-Expose-new-hypercall-xc_reserved_device_.patch 0010-tools-extend-xc_assign_device-to-support-rdm-reserva.patch 0011-tools-introduce-some-new-parameters-to-set-rdm-polic.patch #4. tools/linxl 0012-tools-libxl-passes-rdm-reservation-policy.patch 0013-tools-libxl-detect-and-avoid-conflicts-with-RDM.patch 0014-tools-libxl-extend-XENMEM_set_memory_map.patch #5. Misc 0015-xen-vtd-enable-USB-device-assignment.patch 0016-xen-vtd-prevent-from-assign-the-device-with-shared-r.patch Thanks Tiejun _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |