Re: Virtio-IOMMU interrupt remapping design

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 04:57:20PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 03:44:20PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 10:20:31AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jun 15, 2025 at 02:47:15PM -0400, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Is a paravirtualized IOMMU with interrupt remapping something that makes
> > > > sense?
> > > 
> > > IMHO linking interrupt remapping to the iommu is a poor design,
> > > interrupt routing belongs in the irq subsystem, not in the iommu.
> > > 
> > > The fact AMD and Intel both coupled their interrupt routing to their
> > > iommu hardware is just a weird design decision. ARM didn't do this,
> > > for instance.
> > 
> > why does it matter in which device it resides?
> 
> It would cleanup the boot process if the IRQ components were available
> at the same time as the IRQ drivers instead of much later when the
> iommu gets plugged in.
> 
> > Way I see it, there is little reason to remap interrupts without
> > also using an iommu, so why not a single device.  what did I miss?
> 
> Remapping interrupts can be understood to be virtualizing the MSI
> addr/data pair space so that the CPU controls where the interrupt goes
> though its internal tables not the device through the addr/data.
> 
> On x86 you also need to use remapping to exceed the max CPU count that
> can be encoded in the MSI, no iommu required to need this.

More of an x86 quirk though, isn't it?

> There is also some stuff related to IMS that could get improved here.
> 
> You don't need an iommu to enjoy those benefits.
> 
> Jason