Re: [Qemu-devel] [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4] Hvmloader: Modify ACPI to only supply _EJ0 methods for PCIslots that support hotplug by runtime patching

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>]

On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 11:26:35AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-05-09 at 10:15 +0000, Gonglei (Arei) wrote:
> > Hi, 
> > 
> > First, please forgive me for my bad English.
> > It's so sad.
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ian Campbell [mailto:Ian.Campbell@citrix.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 5:57 PM
> > > To: Gonglei (Arei)
> > > Cc: Jan Beulich; xen-devel@lists.xen.org; anthony.perard@citrix.com;
> > > stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com; johannes.krampf@googlemail.com; Gaowei
> > > (UVP); Hanweidong (Randy); Huangweidong (C); kevin@koconnor.net;
> > > fabio.fantoni@m2r.biz; qemu-devel@nongnu.org; mst@redhat.com
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] Hvmloader: Modify ACPI to only supply _EJ0 methods
> > > for PCIslots that support hotplug by runtime patching
> > > 
> > > On Fri, 2014-05-09 at 09:45 +0000, Gonglei (Arei) wrote:
> > > > > And it also seem pretty pointless to send a v4 without addressing
> > > > > all comments you got on v3.
> > > > >
> > > > I don't think so. I have absorbed Ian's all suggestion on v3. And for other
> > > > questions have been answered too, in despite of is me or not.
> > > 
> > > Actually you haven't answered "Why is runtime patching the only
> > > option here?" which was originally phrased as:
> > > > > Which appears to involve an awful lot of jumping through hoops... Please
> > > > > can you explain why it is necessary, as opposed to e.g. using a dynamic
> > > > > set of SSDTs?
> > > 
> > Ian, I understand your mean now, which consider our method to address 
> > this issue is maybe unnecessary, right? And you suggest us to use a dynamic 
> > set of SSDTs.
> 
> Really what I'm asking is what set of constraints and requirements led
> you to this particular solution.
> 
> I think the method seems complicated, and I'd therefore like to know why
> it was preferred over other alternatives, or perhaps why it is the only
> option.
> 
> > TBH I don't know more about the dynamic SSDTs, if you have any details, 
> > tell me please, thanks in advance!
> 
> I'm not an ACPI expert, but AIUI an SSDT is essentially a little piece
> of DSDT which is grafted onto the main DSDT at runtime by the OSPM. They
> make it somewhat easier for BIOS (or ACPI table) authors to include or
> exclude functionality at runtime, perhaps on a physical system in
> response to a user changing something in the BIOS setup screens. In Xen
> we appear to use SSDTs for HPET, TPM and S3/S4 functionality, depending
> on the guest configuration
> (hvmloader/acpi/build.c:construct_secondary_tables()).

Can it be used to patch the DSDT? Or were you (Ian) thinking that the bulk
of the ACPI PCI stuff can be moved there ?

How would this work with the 'secondary emulator' patches that
do all of this PCI hotplug in the hypervisor? (CC-ing the author
of said patches).

> 
> Ian.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel