From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>
Cc: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>,
kevin.tian@intel.com, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
jasowang@redhat.com, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, sebastien.boeuf@intel.com,
jacob.jun.pan@intel.com, bhelgaas@google.com,
robin.murphy@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] iommu/virtio: Add topology description to virtio-iommu config space
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2020 11:09:41 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200303105523-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200303155318.GA3954@8bytes.org>
On Tue, Mar 03, 2020 at 04:53:19PM +0100, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 03, 2020 at 09:00:05AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > Not necessarily. E.g. some power systems have neither.
> > There are also systems looking to bypass ACPI e.g. for boot speed.
>
> If there is no firmware layer between the hardware and the OS the
> necessary information the OS needs to run on the hardware is probably
> hard-coded into the kernel?
No. It's coded into the hardware. Which might even be practical
for bare-metal (e.g. on-board flash), but is very practical
when the device is part of a hypervisor.
> In that case the same can be done with
> virtio-iommu tolopology.
>
> > That sentence doesn't really answer the question, does it?
>
> To be more elaborate, putting this information into config space is a
> layering violation. Hardware is never completly self-descriptive
This "hardware" is actually part of hypervisor so there's no
reason it can't be completely self-descriptive. It's specified
by the same entity as the "firmware".
> and
> that is why there is the firmware which provides the information about
> the hardware to the OS in a generic way.
>
> > Frankly with platform specific interfaces like ACPI, virtio-iommu is
> > much less compelling. Describing topology as part of the device in a
> > way that is first, portable, and second, is a good fit for hypervisors,
> > is to me one of the main reasons virtio-iommu makes sense at all.
>
> Virtio-IOMMU makes sense in the first place because it is much faster
> than emulating one of the hardware IOMMUs.
I don't see why it would be much faster. The interface isn't that
different from command queues of VTD.
> And an ACPI table is also
> portable to all ACPI platforms, same with device-tree.
>
> Regards,
>
> Joerg
Making ACPI meet the goals of embedded projects such as kata containers
would be a gigantic task with huge stability implications. By
comparison this 400-line parser is well contained and does the job. I
didn't yet see compelling reasons not to merge this, but I'll be
interested to see some more specific concerns.
--
MST
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>
Cc: Auger Eric <eric.auger@redhat.com>,
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>,
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, bhelgaas@google.com,
jasowang@redhat.com, kevin.tian@intel.com,
sebastien.boeuf@intel.com, jacob.jun.pan@intel.com,
robin.murphy@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] iommu/virtio: Add topology description to virtio-iommu config space
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2020 11:09:41 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200303105523-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200303155318.GA3954@8bytes.org>
On Tue, Mar 03, 2020 at 04:53:19PM +0100, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 03, 2020 at 09:00:05AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > Not necessarily. E.g. some power systems have neither.
> > There are also systems looking to bypass ACPI e.g. for boot speed.
>
> If there is no firmware layer between the hardware and the OS the
> necessary information the OS needs to run on the hardware is probably
> hard-coded into the kernel?
No. It's coded into the hardware. Which might even be practical
for bare-metal (e.g. on-board flash), but is very practical
when the device is part of a hypervisor.
> In that case the same can be done with
> virtio-iommu tolopology.
>
> > That sentence doesn't really answer the question, does it?
>
> To be more elaborate, putting this information into config space is a
> layering violation. Hardware is never completly self-descriptive
This "hardware" is actually part of hypervisor so there's no
reason it can't be completely self-descriptive. It's specified
by the same entity as the "firmware".
> and
> that is why there is the firmware which provides the information about
> the hardware to the OS in a generic way.
>
> > Frankly with platform specific interfaces like ACPI, virtio-iommu is
> > much less compelling. Describing topology as part of the device in a
> > way that is first, portable, and second, is a good fit for hypervisors,
> > is to me one of the main reasons virtio-iommu makes sense at all.
>
> Virtio-IOMMU makes sense in the first place because it is much faster
> than emulating one of the hardware IOMMUs.
I don't see why it would be much faster. The interface isn't that
different from command queues of VTD.
> And an ACPI table is also
> portable to all ACPI platforms, same with device-tree.
>
> Regards,
>
> Joerg
Making ACPI meet the goals of embedded projects such as kata containers
would be a gigantic task with huge stability implications. By
comparison this 400-line parser is well contained and does the job. I
didn't yet see compelling reasons not to merge this, but I'll be
interested to see some more specific concerns.
--
MST
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-03 16:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 68+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-02-28 17:25 [PATCH v2 0/3] virtio-iommu on x86 and non-devicetree platforms Jean-Philippe Brucker
2020-02-28 17:25 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2020-02-28 17:25 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] iommu/virtio: Add topology description to virtio-iommu config space Jean-Philippe Brucker
2020-02-28 17:25 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2020-03-01 11:17 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2020-03-01 11:17 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2020-03-02 16:16 ` Joerg Roedel
2020-03-02 16:16 ` Joerg Roedel
2020-03-03 10:19 ` Auger Eric
2020-03-03 10:19 ` Auger Eric
2020-03-03 13:01 ` Joerg Roedel
2020-03-03 13:01 ` Joerg Roedel
2020-03-03 14:00 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2020-03-03 14:00 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2020-03-03 15:53 ` Joerg Roedel
2020-03-03 15:53 ` Joerg Roedel
2020-03-03 16:09 ` Michael S. Tsirkin [this message]
2020-03-03 16:09 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2020-03-03 16:21 ` Auger Eric
2020-03-03 16:21 ` Auger Eric
2020-03-04 13:37 ` Joerg Roedel
2020-03-04 13:37 ` Joerg Roedel
2020-03-04 15:38 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2020-03-04 15:38 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2020-03-04 17:40 ` Joerg Roedel
2020-03-04 17:40 ` Joerg Roedel
2020-03-04 21:37 ` Jacob Pan (Jun)
2020-03-04 21:37 ` Jacob Pan (Jun)
2020-03-04 21:37 ` Jacob Pan (Jun)
2020-03-04 21:54 ` Joerg Roedel
2020-03-04 21:54 ` Joerg Roedel
2020-03-05 15:42 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2020-03-05 15:42 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2020-03-04 15:48 ` Jacob Pan
2020-03-04 15:48 ` Jacob Pan
2020-03-04 17:34 ` Joerg Roedel
2020-03-04 17:34 ` Joerg Roedel
2020-03-04 19:34 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2020-03-04 19:34 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2020-03-04 21:50 ` Joerg Roedel
2020-03-04 21:50 ` Joerg Roedel
2020-03-05 15:39 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2020-03-05 15:39 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2020-03-03 14:02 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2020-03-03 14:02 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2020-03-03 14:02 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2020-03-05 8:07 ` Tian, Kevin
2020-03-05 8:07 ` Tian, Kevin
2020-03-11 17:48 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2020-03-11 17:48 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2020-03-11 21:48 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2020-03-11 21:48 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2020-04-13 13:22 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2020-04-13 13:22 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2020-04-21 7:31 ` Tian, Kevin
2020-04-21 7:31 ` Tian, Kevin
2020-08-21 8:39 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2020-08-21 8:39 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2020-08-21 8:39 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2020-02-28 17:25 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] PCI: Add DMA configuration for virtual platforms Jean-Philippe Brucker
2020-02-28 17:25 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2020-03-18 21:10 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-03-18 21:10 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-02-28 17:25 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] iommu/virtio: Enable x86 support Jean-Philippe Brucker
2020-02-28 17:25 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2020-02-29 14:23 ` kbuild test robot
2020-02-29 14:23 ` kbuild test robot
2020-02-29 14:23 ` kbuild test robot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200303105523-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org \
--to=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=jacob.jun.pan@intel.com \
--cc=jasowang@redhat.com \
--cc=jean-philippe@linaro.org \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=kevin.tian@intel.com \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
--cc=sebastien.boeuf@intel.com \
--cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.