From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Fedin Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/7] KVM: api: add kvm_irq_routing_extended_msi Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2015 16:32:12 +0300 Message-ID: <024301d0b7f0$2b13b410$813b1c30$@samsung.com> References: <1435592237-17924-1-git-send-email-eric.auger@linaro.org> <1435592237-17924-2-git-send-email-eric.auger@linaro.org> <011f01d0b498$6a17aeb0$3e470c10$@samsung.com> <5596503E.6040902@arm.com> <00fd01d0b7b6$f6cf3550$e46d9ff0$@samsung.com> <559A3C9C.6050302@arm.com> <20150706093026.GA11590@cbox> <559A52E6.5050402@arm.com> <20150706103755.GC11590@cbox> <559A6164.1000401@redhat.com> <559A6527.1040107@arm.com> <559A6BBC.2040901@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: 'Eric Auger' , eric.auger@st.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, 'Marc Zyngier' , kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: 'Paolo Bonzini' , 'Andre Przywara' , 'Christoffer Dall' Return-path: In-reply-to: <559A6BBC.2040901@redhat.com> Content-language: ru Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org Hi! > > Well, as we are about to implement this: yes. But the issue is that MSI > > injection and GSI routing code is generic PCI code in userland (at least > > in kvmtool, guess in QEMU, too), so I don't want to pull in any kind of > > ARM specific code in there. The idea is to always provide the device ID > > from the PCI code (for PCI devices it's just the B/D/F triplet), but > > only send it to the kernel if needed. Querying a KVM capability is > > perfectly fine for this IMO. > > Yes, I agree. Actually, we already have this capability, it's KVM_CAP_IRQ_ROUTING. If we have this capability, and want to use irqfds with GICv3, we need to set KVM_MSI_VALID_DEVID. And there is no other way to use irqfds with GICv3. Just for example, this is what i have done in qemu: --- cut --- int kvm_irqchip_add_msi_route(KVMState *s, MSIMessage msg, PCIDevice *dev) { struct kvm_irq_routing_entry kroute = {}; int virq; if (kvm_gsi_direct_mapping()) { return kvm_arch_msi_data_to_gsi(msg.data); } if (!kvm_gsi_routing_enabled()) { return -ENOSYS; } virq = kvm_irqchip_get_virq(s); if (virq < 0) { return virq; } kroute.gsi = virq; kroute.type = KVM_IRQ_ROUTING_MSI; kroute.u.msi.address_lo = (uint32_t)msg.address; kroute.u.msi.address_hi = msg.address >> 32; kroute.u.msi.data = le32_to_cpu(msg.data); kroute.flags = kvm_msi_flags; if (kroute.flags & KVM_MSI_VALID_DEVID) { kroute.u.msi.devid = (pci_bus_num(dev->bus) << 8) | dev->devfn; } if (kvm_arch_fixup_msi_route(&kroute, msg.address, msg.data)) { kvm_irqchip_release_virq(s, virq); return -EINVAL; } kvm_add_routing_entry(s, &kroute); kvm_irqchip_commit_routes(s); return virq; } --- cut --- ITS code in qemu just does: ---cut --- msi_supported = true; kvm_msi_flags = KVM_MSI_VALID_DEVID; kvm_msi_via_irqfd_allowed = kvm_has_gsi_routing(); kvm_gsi_routing_allowed = kvm_msi_via_irqfd_allowed; --- cut --- I set KVM_MSI_VALID_DEVID unconditionally here just because it will never be checked if kvm_msi_via_irqfd_allowed is false, it's just qemu specifics. The more canonical form would perhaps be: --- cut --- if (kvm_has_gsi_routing()) { kvm_msi_flags = KVM_MSI_VALID_DEVID; kvm_gsi_routing_allowed = true; kvm_msi_via_irqfd_allowed = true; } --- cut --- I can post my sets as RFCs to qemu mailing list, if you want to take a look at the whole change set. Kind regards, Pavel Fedin Expert Engineer Samsung Electronics Research center Russia