From: Marcel Apfelbaum <marcel@redhat.com>
To: Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladkani@ravellosystems.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] virtio-pci: Set the QEMU_PCI_CAP_EXPRESS capability early in its DeviceClass realize method
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 22:46:33 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <565E0729.9060603@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151201213007.2b41e810@halley>
On 12/01/2015 09:30 PM, Shmulik Ladkani wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 18:36:39 +0200 Marcel Apfelbaum <marcel@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> + if (pci_is_express(pci_dev) && pci_bus_is_express(pci_dev->bus) &&
>>> + !pci_bus_is_root(pci_dev->bus)) {
>>> int pos;
>>
>> Here you should check only for 'pci_is_express(pci_dev)' .
>
> [snip]
>
>>> +static void virtio_pci_dc_realize(DeviceState *qdev, Error **errp)
>>> +{
>>> + VirtioPCIClass *vpciklass = VIRTIO_PCI_GET_CLASS(qdev);
>>> + VirtIOPCIProxy *proxy = VIRTIO_PCI(qdev);
>>> + PCIDevice *pci_dev = &proxy->pci_dev;
>>> +
>>> + if (!(proxy->flags & VIRTIO_PCI_FLAG_DISABLE_PCIE) &&
>>> + !(proxy->flags & VIRTIO_PCI_FLAG_DISABLE_MODERN)) {
>>> + pci_dev->cap_present |= QEMU_PCI_CAP_EXPRESS;
>>
>> And here you should also check:
>> pci_bus_is_express(pci_dev->bus) && !pci_bus_is_root(pci_dev->bus))
>>
>> The reason is the device becomes express only if *all* the conditions
>> are met.
>
> I'm ok with either approaches.
>
> However it seems common practice to set QEMU_PCI_CAP_EXPRESS
> unconditionally for PCIE devices.
>
> The few existing PCIE devices do so by assigning their
> PCIDeviceClass.is_express to 1 within their 'class_init', regardless the
> properties of the bus their on.
> (e.g. xhci_class_init, megasas_class_init, vfio_pci_dev_class_init,
> nvme_class_init, and more)
>
> Some devices later call pcie_endpoint_cap_init conditionally.
> (e.g. usb_xhci_realize).
>
> Can you please examine this and let me know the preferred approach?
Yes, I saw that..., as always not a walk in the park.
- So we have "is_express = true" <=> QEMU_PCI_CAP_EXPRESS on <=> "config size = PCIe"
- Not related to the above (!!), if (some condition) => add PCIe express capability
(megasas is the exception)
Let's take "usb_xhci":
- If we put it under a PCI bus it will not be an express device, but
it will have a "big" config space. Also pci_is_express(dev) will still return true!
- This is probably a bug. (or I am missing something)
NVME:
- simple, always PCIe
Now let's see vfio-pci:
- is_express = true (with the comment: we might be) => PCIe config
- vfio_populate_device => checks actual register (I think),
if not PCIe, rewinds it :
vdev->config_size = reg_info.size;
if (vdev->config_size == PCI_CONFIG_SPACE_SIZE) {
vdev->pdev.cap_present &= ~QEMU_PCI_CAP_EXPRESS;
}
- better (we still "loose" the space, but at least pci_is_express will return false)
Now virtio case:
- If we split the conditions into 2 parts we would have usb_xhci issues:
- PCIe config space for a PCI device if *some* conditions are not met.
- pci_is_express will return true when we don't want that.
If you see a reason to split, please do, I only see problems :)
Our solution to make it "clean" is to not mark the class as "is_express",
but hijack realize method and add our "conditions" before calling it.
A more elegant solution would be to make is_express a method and let the subclasses
implement it:
- vfio will look for the actual device config space
- NVME will return true
- usb_xhci will condition this on the bus type
- virtio will have its own conditions.
But this is not 2.5 material.
I hope I helped,
Thanks for getting involved.
Marcel
>
>>> + DeviceRealize saved_dc_realize;
>>
>> I would change the name to parent_realize :)
>
> Sure.
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-12-01 20:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-12-01 16:23 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] virtio-pci: Set the QEMU_PCI_CAP_EXPRESS capability early in its DeviceClass realize method Shmulik Ladkani
2015-12-01 16:36 ` Marcel Apfelbaum
2015-12-01 19:30 ` Shmulik Ladkani
2015-12-01 20:46 ` Marcel Apfelbaum [this message]
2015-12-02 8:01 ` Shmulik Ladkani
2015-12-02 9:51 ` Marcel Apfelbaum
2015-12-02 13:30 ` Shmulik Ladkani
2015-12-02 14:00 ` Marcel Apfelbaum
2015-12-02 14:27 ` Shmulik Ladkani
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=565E0729.9060603@redhat.com \
--to=marcel@redhat.com \
--cc=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=shmulik.ladkani@ravellosystems.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).