[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [XEN PATCH v12 2/7] x86/pvh: Allow (un)map_pirq when dom0 is PVH
On Fri, Aug 02, 2024 at 02:37:24AM +0000, Chen, Jiqian wrote: > On 2024/7/31 21:03, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 01:39:40PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> On 31.07.2024 13:29, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > >>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 11:55:35AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>>> On 31.07.2024 11:37, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > >>>>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 11:02:01AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>>>>> On 31.07.2024 10:51, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > >>>>>>> I agree with (a), but I don't think enabling PVH dom0 usage of the > >>>>>>> hypercalls should be gated on this. As said a PV dom0 is already > >>>>>>> capable of issuing PHYSDEVOP_{,un}map_pirq operations against a PVH > >>>>>>> domU. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Okay, I can accept that as an intermediate position. We ought to deny > >>>>>> such requests at some point though for PVH domains, the latest in the > >>>>>> course of making vPCI work there. > >>>>> > >>>>> Hm, once physdev_map_pirq() works as intended against PVH domains, I > >>>>> don't see why we would prevent the usage of PHYSDEVOP_{,un}map_pirq > >>>>> against such domains. > >>>> > >>>> Well. If it can be made work as intended, then I certainly agree. > >>>> However, > >>>> without even the concept of pIRQ in PVH I'm having a hard time seeing how > >>>> it can be made work. Iirc you were advocating for us to not introduce > >>>> pIRQ > >>>> into PVH. > >>> > >>> From what I'm seeing here the intention is to expose > >>> PHYSDEVOP_{,un}map_pirq to PVH dom0, so there must be some notion of > >>> pIRQs or akin in a PVH dom0? Even if only for passthrough needs. > >> > >> Only in so far as it is an abstract, handle-like value pertaining solely > >> to the target domain. > >> > >>>> Maybe you're thinking of re-using the sub-ops, requiring PVH domains to > >>>> pass in GSIs? > >>> > >>> I think that was one my proposals, to either introduce a new > >>> hypercall that takes a GSI, or to modify the PHYSDEVOP_{,un}map_pirq > >>> in an ABI compatible way so that semantically the field could be a GSI > >>> rather than a pIRQ. We however would also need a way to reference an > >>> MSI entry. > >> > >> Of course. > >> > >>> My main concern is not with pIRQs by itself, pIRQs are just an > >>> abstract way to reference interrupts, my concern and what I wanted to > >>> avoid on PVH is being able to route pIRQs over event channels. IOW: > >>> have interrupts from physical devices delivered over event channels. > >> > >> Oh, I might have slightly misunderstood your intentions then. > > > > My intention would be to not even use pIRQs at all, in order to avoid > > the temptation of the guest itself managing interrupts using > > hypercalls, hence I would have preferred that abstract interface to be > > something else. > > > > Maybe we could even expose the Xen IRQ space directly, and just use > > that as interrupt handles, but since I'm not the one doing the work > > I'm not sure it's fair to ask for something that would require more > > changes internally to Xen. > > > >>>> I think I suggested something along these lines also to > >>>> Jiqian, yet with the now intended exposure to !has_pirq() domains I'm > >>>> not sure this could be made work reliably. > >>> > >>> I'm afraid I've been lacking behind on reviewing those series. > >>> > >>>> Which reminds me of another question I had: What meaning does the pirq > >>>> field have right now, if Dom0 would issue the request against a PVH DomU? > >>>> What meaning will it have for a !has_pirq() HVM domain? > >>> > >>> The pirq field could be a way to reference an interrupt. It doesn't > >>> need to be exposed to the PVH domU at all, but it's a way for the > >>> device model to identify which interrupt should be mapped to which > >>> domain. > >> > >> Since pIRQ-s are per-domain, _that_ kind of association won't be > >> helped. But yes, as per above it could serve as an abstract handle- > >> like value. > > > > I would be fine with doing the interrupt bindings based on IRQs > > instead of pIRQs, but I'm afraid that would require more changes to > > hypercalls and Xen internals. > > > > At some point I need to work on a new interface to do passthrough, so > > that we can remove the usage of domctls from QEMU. That might be a > > good opportunity to switch from using pIRQs. > > Thanks for your input, but I may be a bit behind you with my knowledge and > can't fully understand the discussion. > How should I modify this question later? > Should I add a new hypercall specifically for passthrough? > Or if it is to prevent the (un)map from being used for PVH guests, can I just > add a new function to check if the subject domain is a PVH type? Like > is_pvh_domain(). I think that would be part of a new interface, as said before I don't think it would be fair to force you to do all this work. I won't oppose with the approach to attempt to re-use the existing interfaces as much as possible. I think this patch needs to be adjusted to drop the change to xen/arch/x86/physdev.c, as just allowing PHYSDEVOP_{,un}map_pirq without any change to do_physdev_op() should result in the correct behavior. Thanks, Roger.
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |