From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.xenproject.org (lists.xenproject.org [192.237.175.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7A84C27C53 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2024 10:34:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lists.xenproject.org with outflank-mailman.739148.1146093 (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1sHLJC-0001OO-1D; Wed, 12 Jun 2024 10:34:26 +0000 X-Outflank-Mailman: Message body and most headers restored to incoming version Received: by outflank-mailman (output) from mailman id 739148.1146093; Wed, 12 Jun 2024 10:34:25 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1sHLJB-0001OH-UU; Wed, 12 Jun 2024 10:34:25 +0000 Received: by outflank-mailman (input) for mailman id 739148; Wed, 12 Jun 2024 10:34:24 +0000 Received: from se1-gles-sth1-in.inumbo.com ([159.253.27.254] helo=se1-gles-sth1.inumbo.com) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1sHLJA-0001OB-QA for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Wed, 12 Jun 2024 10:34:24 +0000 Received: from mail-ed1-x532.google.com (mail-ed1-x532.google.com [2a00:1450:4864:20::532]) by se1-gles-sth1.inumbo.com (Halon) with ESMTPS id 55748f1b-28a7-11ef-90a3-e314d9c70b13; Wed, 12 Jun 2024 12:34:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-ed1-x532.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-57c76497cefso4801131a12.1 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2024 03:34:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.156.60.236] (ip-037-024-206-209.um08.pools.vodafone-ip.de. [37.24.206.209]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-57ca82877b7sm1133692a12.48.2024.06.12.03.34.21 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 12 Jun 2024 03:34:22 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Precedence: list Sender: "Xen-devel" X-Inumbo-ID: 55748f1b-28a7-11ef-90a3-e314d9c70b13 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=google; t=1718188462; x=1718793262; darn=lists.xenproject.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:autocrypt:from :content-language:references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version :date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=uKjO2lbOacLKbkepJHdnURZOX2A8rIBxV0nZa0iKZ4k=; b=K6SKP5jFUZeBvv5+ZHMtlpm05ODj7JJ++OS5CQjpXYQGzfkfy63Ah/+RyvhnDsgJ/h Syq+8rHmUEDHRVABmHhSMEgsu4W/qtb60POtKX9pGfwLaaU2pKy+ZPI/XD7OecxO64On zZss+VFFX+MKKH+SrZ85A/Lbi5QKKrz9pKVfD3VJnsyK9ntAIWTPSAISO4gOMM9eASVV O/5+u4fE6NfS/aPVKi11mxS1vnOFYdWaowxD3qtzGNc+lsmW2+Q2ERD86pk2Aj9w/c6g 52o0QF88VFM+C4c5+FC7C4bQ9cbe0yIuh4ye1toJ2R/5v9EwEPYJzD0YEhDFamYr4Gui jrcQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1718188462; x=1718793262; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:autocrypt:from :content-language:references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version :date:message-id:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=uKjO2lbOacLKbkepJHdnURZOX2A8rIBxV0nZa0iKZ4k=; b=rfQcuWtMgtor/9nQ81J2gXapBc+AZa7PNlfeN7SIdnHBRj+/LTDTueSJxAQMDNulV9 cJXavm+yll5ZjaHTPJTUSWjNFhuiiz59VKtARhl5WOyU/dUsGN6TtPrFW0yev6mjh5V3 RK40oapYPfYd0Wit7wChplMDhbCl3cm/XZww0k4dNys2QEJT9xkYtJAjExoPopG4N/oC +9C/aIF96A3cv7XLprATOADM+oP7qHsI8suc3gkPSLA36THkC/yTMbOCvyF1tXsYBrzX PgUo9HfXlh4KO2mre4pt9LEZhwmDBOXocH0bwS71i/poJj8/ATnnbu5XPobbeskIBivy HWzQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXs6sLZ96q40obzZ3yoLhMm7X7ehsmj8t8EnoLUqXc/jW9cPSO2qWrQ5437qGiNGhtRQW1JU96TtD2a0XZ2+WxgpbLxWeqTlEErwqzUbaI= X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwmSxFmmwgN8tHmHIpg9gc0SGN01YGmGsmA9SMdBQyRqZJK/A7U felc1QqBvPrMnJXQBmTH+fS1z/nMeUNW+BlScKIBLkiZ7tcmpZm/PYmiG01cRQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEclVmKgX0GCWA7DQsqIaF7OXVSF4LDq3ufQ+QDn+5v4Hf5yp2bDguG6LnATnT+kLvyHyKgyQ== X-Received: by 2002:a50:9e24:0:b0:578:57b7:9f32 with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-57caaabf033mr1058344a12.35.1718188462574; Wed, 12 Jun 2024 03:34:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 12:34:21 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [RFC XEN PATCH v9 5/5] domctl: Add XEN_DOMCTL_gsi_permission to grant gsi To: "Chen, Jiqian" Cc: Andrew Cooper , =?UTF-8?Q?Roger_Pau_Monn=C3=A9?= , Wei Liu , George Dunlap , Julien Grall , Stefano Stabellini , Anthony PERARD , Juergen Gross , "Hildebrand, Stewart" , "Huang, Ray" , "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" , "Daniel P . Smith" References: <20240607081127.126593-1-Jiqian.Chen@amd.com> <20240607081127.126593-6-Jiqian.Chen@amd.com> <987f5d21-bbb5-4cdb-975b-91949e802921@suse.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Jan Beulich Autocrypt: addr=jbeulich@suse.com; keydata= xsDiBFk3nEQRBADAEaSw6zC/EJkiwGPXbWtPxl2xCdSoeepS07jW8UgcHNurfHvUzogEq5xk hu507c3BarVjyWCJOylMNR98Yd8VqD9UfmX0Hb8/BrA+Hl6/DB/eqGptrf4BSRwcZQM32aZK 7Pj2XbGWIUrZrd70x1eAP9QE3P79Y2oLrsCgbZJfEwCgvz9JjGmQqQkRiTVzlZVCJYcyGGsD /0tbFCzD2h20ahe8rC1gbb3K3qk+LpBtvjBu1RY9drYk0NymiGbJWZgab6t1jM7sk2vuf0Py O9Hf9XBmK0uE9IgMaiCpc32XV9oASz6UJebwkX+zF2jG5I1BfnO9g7KlotcA/v5ClMjgo6Gl MDY4HxoSRu3i1cqqSDtVlt+AOVBJBACrZcnHAUSuCXBPy0jOlBhxPqRWv6ND4c9PH1xjQ3NP nxJuMBS8rnNg22uyfAgmBKNLpLgAGVRMZGaGoJObGf72s6TeIqKJo/LtggAS9qAUiuKVnygo 3wjfkS9A3DRO+SpU7JqWdsveeIQyeyEJ/8PTowmSQLakF+3fote9ybzd880fSmFuIEJldWxp Y2ggPGpiZXVsaWNoQHN1c2UuY29tPsJgBBMRAgAgBQJZN5xEAhsDBgsJCAcDAgQVAggDBBYC AwECHgECF4AACgkQoDSui/t3IH4J+wCfQ5jHdEjCRHj23O/5ttg9r9OIruwAn3103WUITZee e7Sbg12UgcQ5lv7SzsFNBFk3nEQQCACCuTjCjFOUdi5Nm244F+78kLghRcin/awv+IrTcIWF hUpSs1Y91iQQ7KItirz5uwCPlwejSJDQJLIS+QtJHaXDXeV6NI0Uef1hP20+y8qydDiVkv6l IreXjTb7DvksRgJNvCkWtYnlS3mYvQ9NzS9PhyALWbXnH6sIJd2O9lKS1Mrfq+y0IXCP10eS FFGg+Av3IQeFatkJAyju0PPthyTqxSI4lZYuJVPknzgaeuJv/2NccrPvmeDg6Coe7ZIeQ8Yj t0ARxu2xytAkkLCel1Lz1WLmwLstV30g80nkgZf/wr+/BXJW/oIvRlonUkxv+IbBM3dX2OV8 AmRv1ySWPTP7AAMFB/9PQK/VtlNUJvg8GXj9ootzrteGfVZVVT4XBJkfwBcpC/XcPzldjv+3 HYudvpdNK3lLujXeA5fLOH+Z/G9WBc5pFVSMocI71I8bT8lIAzreg0WvkWg5V2WZsUMlnDL9 mpwIGFhlbM3gfDMs7MPMu8YQRFVdUvtSpaAs8OFfGQ0ia3LGZcjA6Ik2+xcqscEJzNH+qh8V m5jjp28yZgaqTaRbg3M/+MTbMpicpZuqF4rnB0AQD12/3BNWDR6bmh+EkYSMcEIpQmBM51qM EKYTQGybRCjpnKHGOxG0rfFY1085mBDZCH5Kx0cl0HVJuQKC+dV2ZY5AqjcKwAxpE75MLFkr wkkEGBECAAkFAlk3nEQCGwwACgkQoDSui/t3IH7nnwCfcJWUDUFKdCsBH/E5d+0ZnMQi+G0A nAuWpQkjM1ASeQwSHEeAWPgskBQL In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 12.06.2024 12:12, Chen, Jiqian wrote: > On 2024/6/11 22:39, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 07.06.2024 10:11, Jiqian Chen wrote: >>> Some type of domain don't have PIRQ, like PVH, it do not do >>> PHYSDEVOP_map_pirq for each gsi. When passthrough a device >>> to guest on PVH dom0, callstack >>> pci_add_dm_done->XEN_DOMCTL_irq_permission will failed at >>> domain_pirq_to_irq, because PVH has no mapping of gsi, pirq >>> and irq on Xen side. >> >> All of this is, to me at least, in pretty sharp contradiction to what >> patch 2 says and does. IOW: Do we want the concept of pIRQ in PVH, or >> do we want to keep that to PV? > It's not contradictory. > What I did is not to add the concept of PIRQs for PVH. After your further explanations on patch 2 - yes, I see now. But in particular there it needs making more clear what case it is that is being enabled by the changes. >>> Signed-off-by: Huang Rui >>> Signed-off-by: Jiqian Chen >> >> A problem throughout the series as it seems: Who's the author of these >> patches? There's no From: saying it's not you, but your S-o-b also >> isn't first. > So I need to change to: > Signed-off-by: Jiqian Chen means I am the author. > Signed-off-by: Huang Rui means Rui sent them to upstream firstly. > Signed-off-by: Jiqian Chen means I take continue to upstream. I guess so, yes. >>> --- a/tools/libs/light/libxl_pci.c >>> +++ b/tools/libs/light/libxl_pci.c >>> @@ -1412,6 +1412,37 @@ static bool pci_supp_legacy_irq(void) >>> #define PCI_SBDF(seg, bus, devfn) \ >>> ((((uint32_t)(seg)) << 16) | (PCI_DEVID(bus, devfn))) >>> >>> +static int pci_device_set_gsi(libxl_ctx *ctx, >>> + libxl_domid domid, >>> + libxl_device_pci *pci, >>> + bool map, >>> + int *gsi_back) >>> +{ >>> + int r, gsi, pirq; >>> + uint32_t sbdf; >>> + >>> + sbdf = PCI_SBDF(pci->domain, pci->bus, (PCI_DEVFN(pci->dev, pci->func))); >>> + r = xc_physdev_gsi_from_dev(ctx->xch, sbdf); >>> + *gsi_back = r; >>> + if (r < 0) >>> + return r; >>> + >>> + gsi = r; >>> + pirq = r; >> >> r is a GSI as per above; why would you store such in a variable named pirq? >> And how can ... >> >>> + if (map) >>> + r = xc_physdev_map_pirq(ctx->xch, domid, gsi, &pirq); >>> + else >>> + r = xc_physdev_unmap_pirq(ctx->xch, domid, pirq); >> >> ... that value be the correct one to pass into here? In fact, the pIRQ number >> you obtain above in the "map" case isn't handed to the caller, i.e. it is >> effectively lost. Yet that's what would need passing into such an unmap call. > Yes r is GSI and I know pirq will be replaced by xc_physdev_map_pirq. > What I do "pirq = r" is for xc_physdev_unmap_pirq, unmap need passing in pirq, > and the number of pirq is always equal to gsi. Why would that be? pIRQ is purely a software construct (of Xen's), I don't think there's any guarantee whatsoever on the numbering. And even if there was (for e.g. non-MSI ones), it would be pIRQ == IRQ. And recall that elsewhere I think I meanwhile succeeded in explaining to you that IRQ != GSI (in the common case, even if in most cases they match). >>> + if (r) >>> + return r; >>> + >>> + r = xc_domain_gsi_permission(ctx->xch, domid, gsi, map); >> >> Looking at the hypervisor side, this will fail for PV Dom0. In which case imo >> you better would avoid making the call in the first place. > Yes, for PV dom0, the errno is EOPNOTSUPP, then it will do below xc_domain_irq_permission. Hence why call xc_domain_gsi_permission() at all on a PV Dom0? >>> + if (r && errno == EOPNOTSUPP) >> >> Before here you don't really need the pIRQ number; if all it really is needed >> for is ... >> >>> + r = xc_domain_irq_permission(ctx->xch, domid, pirq, map); >> >> ... this, then it probably also should only be obtained when it's needed. Yet >> overall the intentions here aren't quite clear to me. > Adding the function pci_device_set_gsi is for PVH dom0, while also ensuring compatibility with PV dom0. > When PVH dom0, it does xc_physdev_map_pirq and xc_domain_gsi_permission(new hypercall for PVH dom0) > When PV dom0, it keeps the same actions as before codes, it does xc_physdev_map_pirq and xc_domain_irq_permission. And why does PVH Dom0 need to call xc_physdev_map_pirq(), when in that case the pIRQ isn't used? Jan