Re: RFC: vfio / device assignment -- layout of device fd files

Alex Williamson
2011-08-30T04:55:13Z

On Mon, 2011-08-29 at 18:14 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 08/29/2011 05:46 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-08-29 at 16:58 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> >> On 08/29/2011 02:51 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 2011-08-29 at 16:51 +0000, Yoder Stuart-B08248 wrote:
> >>>> The device info records following the file header have the following
> >>>> record types each with content encoded in a record specific way:
> >>>>
> >>>> REGION - describes an addressable address range for the device
> >>>> DTPATH - describes the device tree path for the device
> >>>> DTINDEX - describes the index into the related device tree
> >>>> property (reg,ranges,interrupts,interrupt-map)
> >>>
> >>> I don't quite understand if these are physical or virtual.
> >>
> >> If what are physical or virtual?
> >
> > Can you give an example of a path vs an index? I don't understand
> > enough about these to ask a useful question about what they're
> > describing.
>
> You'd have both path and index.
>
> Example, for this tree:
>
> / {
> ...
> foo {
> ...
> bar {
> reg = <0x1000 64 0x1800 64>;
> ranges = <0 0x20000 0x10000>;
> ...
>
> child {
> reg = <0x100 0x100>;
> ...
> };
> };
> };
> };
>
> There would be 4 regions if you bind to /foo/bar:
>
> // this is 64 bytes at 0x1000
> DTPATH "/foo/bar"
> DTINDEX prop_type=REG prop_index=0
>
> // this is 64 bytes at 0x1800
> DTPATH "/foo/bar"
> DTINDEX prop_type=REG prop_index=1
>
> // this is 16K at 0x20000
> DTPATH "/foo/bar"
> DTINDEX prop_type=RANGES prop_index=0
>
> // this is 256 bytes at 0x20100
> DTPATH "/foo/bar/child"
> DTINDEX prop_type=REG prop_index=0
>
> Both ranges and the child reg are needed, since ranges could be a simple
> "ranges;" that passes everything with no translation, and child nodes
> could be absent-but-implied in some other cases (such as when they
> represent PCI devices which can be probed -- we still need to map the
> ranges that correspond to PCI controller windows).

Thanks for the example. Is it always the case that you need a path and
an index? If so, why are they separate sub-regions instead of combined
into a DT_INFO sub-region?

> >>>> INTERRUPT - describes an interrupt for the device
> >>>> PCI_CONFIG_SPACE - describes config space for the device
> >>>
> >>> I would have expected this to be a REGION with a property of
> >>> PCI_CONFIG_SPACE.
> >>
> >> Could be, if physical address is made optional.
> >
> > Or physical address is also a property, aka sub-region.
>
> A subrecord of REGION is fine with me.
>
> >>> Would we only need to expose phys addr for 1:1 mapping requirements?
> >>> I'm not sure why we'd care to expose this otherwise.
> >>
> >> It's more important for non-PCI, where it avoids the need for userspace
> >> to parse the device tree to find the guest address (we'll usually want
> >> 1:1), or to consolidate pages shared by multiple regions. It could be
> >> nice for debugging, as well.
> >
> > So the device tree path is ripped straight from the system, so it's the
> > actual 1:1, matching physical hardware, path.
>
> Yes.
>
> >>> Even for non-PCI we need to
> >>> know if the region is pio/mmio32/mmio64/prefetchable/etc.
> >>
> >> Outside of PCI, what standardized form would you put such information
> >> in? Where would the kernel get this information? What does
> >> mmio32/mmio64 mean in this context?
> >
> > I could imagine a platform device described by ACPI that might want to
> > differentiate. The physical device doesn't get moved of course, but
> > guest drivers might care how the device is described if we need to
> > rebuild those ACPI tables. ACPI might even be a good place to leverage
> > these data structures... /me ducks.
>
> ACPI info could be another subrecord type, but in the device tree
> system-bus case we generally don't have this information at the generic
> infrastructure level. Drivers are expected to know how their devices'
> regions should be mapped.

The device tree tells them how they're mapped, right? Or maybe more
precisely, the device tree tells them where they're mapped and it
doesn't really matter whether they're 32bit or 64bit because they can't
be moved.

Maybe this is sub-region material. It just feels wrong to enumerate a
region and not be able to include any basic properties beyond offset and
size in a common field. For PCI, we can also describe the properties
via config space, so sub-regions could still be optional.

> >>> BAR index could really just translate to a REGION instance number.
> >>
> >> How would that work if you make non-BAR things (such as config space)
> >> into regions?
> >
> > Put their instance numbers outside of the BAR region? We have a fixed
> > REGION space on PCI, so we could just define BAR0 == instance 0, BAR1 ==
> > instance 1... ROM == instance 6, CONFIG == instance 0xF (or 7).
>
> Seems more awkward than just having each region say what it is. What do
> you do to fill in the gaps?

You don't, instance numbers would just be non-contiguous. The reason I
cringe at PCI_INFO sub-regions is that all the info is already available
in PCI config space and I'm not sure if there's any benefit to duplicate
it in this table. If not, the minimum we need to know is the file
offset to access each region, config/BARs/ROM. We also have MSI/X
interrupts on PCI. Do we need to describe those via info records or
parse PCI config space and know that vfio-pci device fds support the
VFIO_PCI_DEVICE_SET_MSI_FDS ioctl? Thanks,

Alex