|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH v3 6/7] xen/arm: introduce xen-evtchn dom0less property
On Thu, 1 Sep 2022, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 01/09/2022 10:13, Rahul Singh wrote:
> > Introduce a new sub-node under /chosen node to establish static event
> > channel communication between domains on dom0less systems.
> >
> > An event channel will be created beforehand to allow the domains to
> > send notifications to each other.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rahul Singh <rahul.singh@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > Changes in v3:
> > - use device-tree used_by to find the domain id of the evtchn node.
> > - add new static_evtchn_create variable in struct dt_device_node to
> > hold the information if evtchn is already created.
> > - fix minor comments
> > Changes in v2:
> > - no change
> > ---
> > docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt | 64 ++++++++++++-
> > xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c | 128 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > xen/arch/arm/include/asm/setup.h | 1 +
> > xen/arch/arm/setup.c | 2 +
> > xen/include/xen/device_tree.h | 13 +++
> > 5 files changed, 207 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt
> > b/docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt
> > index 98253414b8..edef98e6d1 100644
> > --- a/docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt
> > +++ b/docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt
> > @@ -212,7 +212,7 @@ with the following properties:
> > enable only selected interfaces.
> > Under the "xen,domain" compatible node, one or more sub-nodes are
> > present
> > -for the DomU kernel and ramdisk.
> > +for the DomU kernel, ramdisk and static event channel.
> > The kernel sub-node has the following properties:
> > @@ -254,11 +254,44 @@ The ramdisk sub-node has the following properties:
> > property because it will be created by the UEFI stub on boot.
> > This option is needed only when UEFI boot is used.
> > +The static event channel sub-node has the following properties:
> > +
> > +- compatible
> > +
> > + "xen,evtchn"
> > +
> > +- xen,evtchn
> > +
> > + The property is tuples of two numbers
> > + (local-evtchn link-to-foreign-evtchn) where:
> > +
> > + local-evtchn is an integer value that will be used to allocate local
> > port
> > + for a domain to send and receive event notifications to/from the remote
> > + domain. Maximum supported value is 2^17 for FIFO ABI and 4096 for 2L
> > ABI.
> > + It is recommended to use low event channel IDs.
> > +
> > + link-to-foreign-evtchn is a single phandle to a remote evtchn to which
> > + local-evtchn will be connected.
> > Example
> > =======
> > chosen {
> > +
> > + module@0 {
> > + compatible = "multiboot,kernel", "multiboot,module";
> > + xen,uefi-binary = "...";
> > + bootargs = "...";
> > +
> > + };
>
> NIT: Describing this node in the example seems unnecessary.
>
> > +
> > + /* one sub-node per local event channel */
> > + ec1: evtchn@1 {
> > + compatible = "xen,evtchn-v1";
> > + /* local-evtchn link-to-foreign-evtchn */
> > + xen,evtchn = <0xa &ec2>;
> > + };
> > +
>
> Here you provide an example for dom0. But the position where you describe the
> binding suggests this binding only exists for domUs.
>
> Either we duplicate the binding or we re-order the documentation to have
> common binding in a single place. My preference would be the latter.
>
> > domU1 {
> > compatible = "xen,domain";
> > #address-cells = <0x2>;
> > @@ -277,6 +310,23 @@ chosen {
> > compatible = "multiboot,ramdisk", "multiboot,module";
> > reg = <0x0 0x4b000000 0xffffff>;
> > };
> > +
> > + /* one sub-node per local event channel */
> > + ec2: evtchn@2 {
> > + compatible = "xen,evtchn-v1";
> > + /* local-evtchn link-to-foreign-evtchn */
> > + xen,evtchn = <0xa &ec1>;
> > + };
> > +
> > + ec3: evtchn@3 {
> > + compatible = "xen,evtchn-v1";
> > + xen,evtchn = <0xb &ec5>;
> > + };
> > +
> > + ec4: evtchn@4 {
> > + compatible = "xen,evtchn-v1";
> > + xen,evtchn = <0xc &ec6>;
> > + };
> > };
> > domU2 {
> > @@ -296,6 +346,18 @@ chosen {
> > compatible = "multiboot,ramdisk", "multiboot,module";
> > reg = <0x0 0x4d000000 0xffffff>;
> > };
> > +
> > + /* one sub-node per local event channel */
> > + ec5: evtchn@5 {
> > + compatible = "xen,evtchn-v1";
> > + /* local-evtchn link-to-foreign-evtchn */
> > + xen,evtchn = <0xb &ec3>;
> > + };
> > +
> > + ec6: evtchn@6 {
> > + compatible = "xen,evtchn-v1";
> > + xen,evtchn = <0xd &ec4>;
> > + };
> > };
> > };
> > diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c b/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c
> > index 707e247f6a..4b24261825 100644
> > --- a/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c
> > @@ -33,6 +33,8 @@
> > #include <xen/grant_table.h>
> > #include <xen/serial.h>
> > +#define STATIC_EVTCHN_NODE_SIZE_CELLS 2
> > +
> > static unsigned int __initdata opt_dom0_max_vcpus;
> > integer_param("dom0_max_vcpus", opt_dom0_max_vcpus);
> > @@ -3052,6 +3054,131 @@ void __init evtchn_allocate(struct domain *d)
> > d->arch.hvm.params[HVM_PARAM_CALLBACK_IRQ] = val;
> > }
> > +static int __init get_evtchn_dt_property(const struct dt_device_node *np,
> > + uint32_t *port, uint32_t *phandle)
> > +{
> > + const __be32 *prop = NULL;
> > + uint32_t len;
> > +
> > + prop = dt_get_property(np, "xen,evtchn", &len);
> > + if ( !prop )
> > + {
> > + printk(XENLOG_ERR "xen,evtchn property should not be empty.\n");
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if ( !len || len < dt_cells_to_size(STATIC_EVTCHN_NODE_SIZE_CELLS) )
> > + {
> > + printk(XENLOG_ERR "xen,evtchn property value is not valid.\n");
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > +
> > + *port = dt_next_cell(1, &prop);
> > + *phandle = dt_next_cell(1, &prop);
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int __init alloc_domain_evtchn(struct dt_device_node *node)
> > +{
> > + int rc;
> > + uint32_t domU1_port, domU2_port, remote_phandle;
> > + struct dt_device_node *remote_node;
> > + struct evtchn_alloc_unbound alloc_unbound;
> > + struct evtchn_bind_interdomain bind_interdomain;
> > + struct domain *d1 = NULL, *d2 = NULL;
> > +
> > + if ( dt_device_static_evtchn_created(node) )
>
> I think this deserve a comment explain why the node would be created. I.e it
> would happen if the other side was created first. I will comment about
> dt_device_static_evtchn_created() futher down.
>
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + rc = get_evtchn_dt_property(node, &domU1_port, &remote_phandle);
> > + if ( rc )
> > + return rc;
> > +
> > + remote_node = dt_find_node_by_phandle(remote_phandle);
> > + if ( !remote_node )
> > + {
> > + printk(XENLOG_ERR
> > + "evtchn: could not find remote evtchn phandle\n");
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > +
> > + rc = get_evtchn_dt_property(remote_node, &domU2_port, &remote_phandle);
> > + if ( rc )
> > + return rc;
> > +
> > + if ( node->phandle != remote_phandle )
> > + {
> > + printk(XENLOG_ERR "xen,evtchn property is not setup correctly.\n");
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > +
> > + d1 = get_domain_by_id(dt_get_parent(node)->used_by);
> > + d2 = get_domain_by_id(dt_get_parent(remote_node)->used_by);
>
> I think dt_get_parent() could return NULL (i.e. for the root). So I think you
> want to check that at least remote_node() has a parent. For convenience, this
> check could be done in
>
> > +
> > + if ( !d1 || !d2 )
> > + {
> > + printk(XENLOG_ERR "evtchn: could not find domains\n" );
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > +
> > + alloc_unbound.dom = d1->domain_id;
> > + alloc_unbound.remote_dom = d2->domain_id;
> > +
> > + rc = evtchn_alloc_unbound(&alloc_unbound, domU1_port);
> > + if ( rc < 0 )
> > + {
> > + printk(XENLOG_ERR
> > + "evtchn_alloc_unbound() failure (Error %d) \n", rc);
> > + return rc;
> > + }
> > +
> > + bind_interdomain.remote_dom = d1->domain_id;
> > + bind_interdomain.remote_port = domU1_port;
> > +
> > + rc = evtchn_bind_interdomain(&bind_interdomain, d2, domU2_port);
> > + if ( rc < 0 )
> > + {
> > + printk(XENLOG_ERR
> > + "evtchn_bind_interdomain() failure (Error %d) \n", rc);
> > + return rc;
> > + }
> > +
> > + dt_device_set_static_evtchn_created(node);
> > + dt_device_set_static_evtchn_created(remote_node);
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +void __init process_static_evtchn_node(struct dt_device_node *node)
>
> This is missing a prototype. So I guess this wants to be static?
>
> That said, I think it would make more sense to fold
> process_static_evtchn_node() in alloc_domain_evtchn() or
> alloc_static-evtchn().
>
> > +{
> > + if ( dt_device_is_compatible(node, "xen,evtchn-v1") )
> > + {
> > + if ( alloc_domain_evtchn(node) != 0 )
> > + panic("Could not set up domains evtchn\n");
> > + }
> > +}
> > +
> > +void __init alloc_static_evtchn(void)
> > +{
> > + struct dt_device_node *node, *evtchn_node;
> > + struct dt_device_node *chosen = dt_find_node_by_path("/chosen");
> > +
> > + BUG_ON(chosen == NULL);
> > +
> > + if ( hardware_domain )
> > + dt_device_set_used_by(chosen, hardware_domain->domain_id);
> > +
> > + dt_for_each_child_node(chosen, node)
> > + {
> > + if ( hardware_domain )
> > + process_static_evtchn_node(node);
> > +
> > + dt_for_each_child_node(node, evtchn_node)
> > + process_static_evtchn_node(evtchn_node);
> > + }
> > +}
> > +
> > static void __init find_gnttab_region(struct domain *d,
> > struct kernel_info *kinfo)
> > {
> > @@ -3364,6 +3491,7 @@ void __init create_domUs(void)
> > panic("Error creating domain %s\n", dt_node_name(node));
> > d->is_console = true;
> > + dt_device_set_used_by(node, d->domain_id);
> > if ( construct_domU(d, node) != 0 )
> > panic("Could not set up domain %s\n", dt_node_name(node));
> > diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/include/asm/setup.h
> > b/xen/arch/arm/include/asm/setup.h
> > index 5815ccf8c5..5ee28b270f 100644
> > --- a/xen/arch/arm/include/asm/setup.h
> > +++ b/xen/arch/arm/include/asm/setup.h
> > @@ -106,6 +106,7 @@ int acpi_make_efi_nodes(void *fdt, struct membank
> > tbl_add[]);
> > void create_domUs(void);
> > void create_dom0(void);
> > +void alloc_static_evtchn(void);
> > void discard_initial_modules(void);
> > void fw_unreserved_regions(paddr_t s, paddr_t e,
> > diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/setup.c b/xen/arch/arm/setup.c
> > index 6e0398f3f6..cf15d359d2 100644
> > --- a/xen/arch/arm/setup.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/arm/setup.c
> > @@ -1077,6 +1077,8 @@ void __init start_xen(unsigned long boot_phys_offset,
> > if ( acpi_disabled )
> > create_domUs();
> > + alloc_static_evtchn();
> > +
> > /*
> > * This needs to be called **before** heap_init_late() so modules
> > * will be scrubbed (unless suppressed).
> > diff --git a/xen/include/xen/device_tree.h b/xen/include/xen/device_tree.h
> > index 430a1ef445..5579c875d2 100644
> > --- a/xen/include/xen/device_tree.h
> > +++ b/xen/include/xen/device_tree.h
> > @@ -82,6 +82,7 @@ struct dt_device_node {
> > dt_phandle phandle;
> > char *full_name;
> > domid_t used_by; /* By default it's used by dom0 */
> > + bool_t static_evtchn_created;
>
> I can see why you want to add the boolean in dt_device_node. However, I
> dislike this approach because this feels an abuse of dt_device_node and the
> field is only used at boot.
>
> So this seems to be a bit of a waste to include it in the structure (even if
> we are re-using padding today).
>
> I don't have a solution that is has trivial as this approach. However, at
> minimum we should document this is a HACK and should be remove if we need
> space in the structure.
I would move static_evtchn_created just above (or below) "bool
is_protected". It would still re-use the padding and it would be
closer to another more similar field of the struct.
The only other option that I can think of would be to use port_is_valid,
instead of static_evtchn_created, to check that the port has already
been allocated, but we wouldn't be able to tell if it is a static evtchn
or simply unavailable for other reasons and it would require more device
tree parsing.
|
 |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |