From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Correctly assign PCI domain numbers
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 22:14:15 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110804191415.GA25722@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110804090038.GA6016@yookeroo.fritz.box>
On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 07:00:38PM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 04:28:33PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 12:15:22AM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 05:03:18PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 11:33:37PM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 01:10:38PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 04:51:02PM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> > > > > > > qemu already almost supports PCI domains; that is, several entirely
> > > > > > > independent PCI host bridges on the same machine. However, a bug in
> > > > > > > pci_bus_new_inplace() means that every host bridge gets assigned domain
> > > > > > > number zero and so can't be properly distinguished. This patch fixes the
> > > > > > > bug, giving each new host bridge a new domain number.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OK, but I'd like to see the whole picture.
> > > > > > How does the guest detect multiple domains,
> > > > > > and how does it access them?
> > > > >
> > > > > For the pseries machine, which is what I'm concerned with, each host
> > > > > bridge is advertised through the device tree passed to the guest.
> > > >
> > > > Could you explain please?
> > > > What generates the device tree and passes it to the guest?
> > >
> > > In the case of the pseries machine, it is generated from hw/spapr.c
> > > and loaded into memory for use by the firmware and/or the kernel.
> > >
> > > > > That gives the necessary handles and addresses for accesing config
> > > > > space and memory and IO windows for each host bridge.
> > > >
> > > > I see. I think maybe a global counter in the common code
> > > > is not exactly the best solution in the general case.
> > >
> > > Well, which general case do you have in mind. Since by definition,
> > > PCI domains are entirely independent from each other, domain numbers
> > > are essentially arbitrary as long as they're unique - simply a
> > > convention which makes it easier to describe which host bridge devices
> > > belong on. I don't see an obvious approach which is better than a
> > > global counter, or least not one that doesn't involve a significant
> > > rewrite of the PCI subsystem.
> >
> > OK, let's make sure I understand. On your system 'domain numbers'
> > are completely invisible to the guest, right? You only need them to
> > address devices on qemu monitor ...
>
> Well.. the qemu domain number is not officially visible to the guest.
> However the handles that are visible to the guest will need to be
> derived from some sort of unique domain number.
Interesting. How does it work with your patch?
> > For that, I'm trying to move away from using a domain number. Would
> > it be possible to simply give bus an id, and use bus=<id> instead?
>
> It might be. In this case we should remove the domain numbers (as
> used by pci_find_domain()) from qemu entirely,
Or at least, move to acpi-specific code.
> since they are broken
I agree, they are broken.
> as they stand without this patch.
>
> > BTW, how does a linux guest number domains?
> > Would it make sense to match that?
>
> I'll look into it. It would be nice to have them match, obviously but
> I'm not sure if there will be a way to do this that's both reasonable
> and robust. I suspect they will match already though not in a
> terribly robust way, at least for the pseries machine, becuase qemu
> will create the host bridge nodes in the same order as domain number,
> and I suspect Linux will just allocate domain numbers sequentially in
> that same order.
If the order of things in the tree matters for some guests, we should
give users a way to control that order, or at least make
the order robust.
> --
> David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
> david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
> | _way_ _around_!
> http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-08-04 19:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-08-01 6:51 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Correctly assign PCI domain numbers David Gibson
2011-08-01 8:31 ` Isaku Yamahata
2011-08-01 13:32 ` David Gibson
2011-08-01 10:10 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2011-08-01 13:33 ` David Gibson
2011-08-01 14:03 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2011-08-01 14:15 ` David Gibson
2011-08-03 13:28 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2011-08-04 9:00 ` David Gibson
2011-08-04 19:14 ` Michael S. Tsirkin [this message]
2011-08-10 8:34 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2011-08-11 6:38 ` David Gibson
2011-10-02 10:35 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2011-08-03 10:13 ` [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-trivial] " Stefan Hajnoczi
2011-08-03 10:21 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2011-08-10 3:05 ` [Qemu-devel] " David Gibson
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=20110804191415.GA25722@redhat.com \
--to=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).