From: Greg Kurz <groug@kaod.org>
To: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
Cc: abologna@redhat.com, thuth@redhat.com, lvivier@redhat.com,
benh@kernel.crashing.org, marcel@redhat.com, aik@ozlabs.ru,
ehabkost@redhat.com, mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
libvir-list@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org,
qemu-ppc@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Proposal PCI/PCIe device placement on PAPR guests
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2017 13:01:01 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170106130101.5b88cfec@bahia.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170105054618.GA12106@umbus.fritz.box>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6050 bytes --]
Resending because of bad qemu-devel address...
On Thu, 5 Jan 2017 16:46:18 +1100
David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
> There was a discussion back in November on the qemu list which spilled
> onto the libvirt list about how to add support for PCIe devices to
> POWER VMs, specifically 'pseries' machine type PAPR guests.
>
> Here's a more concrete proposal for how to handle part of this in
> future from the libvirt side. Strictly speaking what I'm suggesting
> here isn't intrinsically linked to PCIe: it will make adding PCIe
> support sanely easier, as well as having a number of advantages for
> both PCIe and plain-PCI devices on PAPR guests.
>
> Background:
>
> * Currently the pseries machine type only supports vanilla PCI
> buses.
> * This is a qemu limitation, not something inherent - PAPR guests
> running under PowerVM (the IBM hypervisor) can use passthrough
> PCIe devices (PowerVM doesn't emulate devices though).
> * In fact the way PCI access is para-virtalized in PAPR makes the
> usual distinctions between PCI and PCIe largely disappear
> * Presentation of PCIe devices to PAPR guests is unusual
> * Unlike x86 - and other "bare metal" platforms, root ports are
> not made visible to the guest. i.e. all devices (typically)
> appear as though they were integrated devices on x86
> * In terms of topology all devices will appear in a way similar to
> a vanilla PCI bus, even PCIe devices
> * However PCIe extended config space is accessible
> * This means libvirt's usual placement of PCIe devices is not
> suitable for PAPR guests
> * PAPR has its own hotplug mechanism
> * This is used instead of standard PCIe hotplug
> * This mechanism works for both PCIe and vanilla-PCI devices
> * This can hotplug/unplug devices even without a root port P2P
> bridge between it and the root "bus
> * Multiple independent host bridges are routine on PAPR
> * Unlike PC (where all host bridges have multiplexed access to
> configuration space) PCI host bridges (PHBs) are truly
> independent for PAPR guests (disjoint MMIO regions in system
> address space)
> * PowerVM typically presents a separate PHB to the guest for each
> host slot passed through
>
> The Proposal:
>
> I suggest that libvirt implement a new default algorithm for placing
> (i.e. assigning addresses to) both PCI and PCIe devices for (only)
> PAPR guests.
>
> The short summary is that by default it should assign each device to a
> separate vPHB, creating vPHBs as necessary.
>
> * For passthrough sometimes a group of host devices can't be safely
> isolated from each other - this is known as a (host) Partitionable
> Endpoint (PE). In this case, if any device in the PE is passed
> through to a guest, the whole PE must be passed through to the
> same vPHB in the guest. From the guest POV, each vPHB has exactly
> one (guest) PE.
> * To allow for hotplugged devices, libvirt should also add a number
> of additional, empty vPHBs (the PAPR spec allows for hotplug of
> PHBs, but this is not yet implemented in qemu). When hotplugging
> a new device (or PE) libvirt should locate a vPHB which doesn't
> currently contain anything.
> * libvirt should only (automatically) add PHBs - never root ports or
> other PCI to PCI bridges
>
> In order to handle migration, the vPHBs will need to be represented in
> the domain XML, which will also allow the user to override this
> topology if they want.
>
> Advantages:
>
> There are still some details I need to figure out w.r.t. handling PCIe
> devices (on both the qemu and libvirt sides). However the fact that
One such detail may be that PCIe devices should have the
"ibm,pci-config-space-type" property set to 1 in the DT,
for the driver to be able to access the extended config
space.
> PAPR guests don't typically see PCIe root ports means that the normal
> libvirt PCIe allocation scheme won't work. This scheme has several
> advantages with or without support for PCIe devices:
>
> * Better performance for 32-bit devices
>
> With multiple devices on a single vPHB they all must share a (fairly
> small) 32-bit DMA/IOMMU window. With separate PHBs they each have a
> separate window. PAPR guests have an always-on guest visible IOMMU.
>
> * Better EEH handling for passthrough devices
>
> EEH is an IBM hardware-assisted mechanism for isolating and safely
> resetting devices experiencing hardware faults so they don't bring
> down other devices or the system at large. It's roughly similar to
> PCIe AER in concept, but has a different IBM specific interface, and
> works on both PCI and PCIe devices.
>
> Currently the kernel interfaces for handling EEH events on passthrough
> devices will only work if there is a single (host) iommu group in the
> vfio container. While lifting that restriction would be nice, it's
> quite difficult to do so (it requires keeping state synchronized
> between multiple host groups). That also means that an EEH error on
> one device could stop another device where that isn't required by the
> actual hardware.
>
> The unit of EEH isolation is a PE (Partitionable Endpoint) and
> currently there is only one guest PE per vPHB. Changing this might
> also be possible, but is again quite complex and may result in
> confusing and/or broken distinctions between groups for EEH isolation
> and IOMMU isolation purposes.
>
> Placing separate host groups in separate vPHBs sidesteps these
> problems.
>
> * Guest NUMA node assignment of devices
>
> PAPR does not (and can't reasonably) use the pxb device. Instead to
> allocate devices to different guest NUMA nodes they should be placed
> on different vPHBs. Placing them on different PHBs by default allows
> NUMA node to be assigned to those PHBs in a straightforward manner.
>
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]
next parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-06 12:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20170105054618.GA12106@umbus.fritz.box>
2017-01-06 12:01 ` Greg Kurz [this message]
2017-01-06 17:34 ` [Qemu-devel] Proposal PCI/PCIe device placement on PAPR guests Andrea Bolognani
2017-01-08 23:46 ` David Gibson
2017-01-12 10:31 ` Andrea Bolognani
2017-01-12 14:52 ` Laine Stump
2017-01-12 16:35 ` Michael Roth
2017-01-12 17:53 ` Laine Stump
2017-01-12 22:56 ` David Gibson
2017-01-18 12:21 ` Marcel Apfelbaum
2017-01-12 22:57 ` David Gibson
2017-01-13 16:29 ` Greg Kurz
[not found] ` <20170106125758.4643fb35@bahia.lan>
[not found] ` <20170112035219.GK14026@umbus.fritz.box>
[not found] ` <0bfaa82a-d5f5-eb0f-14a9-f7d13239cee5@ozlabs.ru>
[not found] ` <20170112100823.2a906117@bahia.lan>
[not found] ` <20170113044831.GP13656@umbus.fritz.box>
[not found] ` <20170113095828.302b77f2@bahia.lan>
[not found] ` <20170222120825.0253f2d6@bahia.lan>
[not found] ` <20170223021152.GR12577@umbus.fritz.box>
2017-02-23 7:23 ` [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-ppc] " Greg Kurz
2017-02-23 22:57 ` 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=20170106130101.5b88cfec@bahia.lan \
--to=groug@kaod.org \
--cc=abologna@redhat.com \
--cc=aik@ozlabs.ru \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=david@gibson.dropbear.id.au \
--cc=ehabkost@redhat.com \
--cc=libvir-list@redhat.com \
--cc=lvivier@redhat.com \
--cc=marcel@redhat.com \
--cc=mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=qemu-ppc@nongnu.org \
--cc=thuth@redhat.com \
/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).