[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH] pci: Use PCI aliases when determining devic
From: |
Michael S. Tsirkin |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH] pci: Use PCI aliases when determining device IOMMU address space |
Date: |
Wed, 24 Jul 2019 05:39:22 -0400 |
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 03:14:39PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 11:26:18AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > On 3/29/19 11:49 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > > [Cc +Brijesh]
> > > >
> > > > Hi Brijesh, will the change below require the IVRS to be updated to
> > > > include aliases for all BDF ranges behind a conventional bridge? I
> > > > think the Linux code handles this regardless of the firmware provided
> > > > aliases, but is it required per spec for the ACPI tables to include
> > > > bridge aliases? Thanks,
> > > >
> > >
> > > We do need to includes aliases in ACPI table. We need to populate the
> > > IVHD type 0x43 and 0x4 for alias range start and end. I believe host
> > > IVRS would contain similar information.
> > >
> > > Suravee, please correct me if I am missing something?
> >
> > I finally found some time to investigate this a little further, yes the
> > types mentioned are correct for defining start and end of an alias
> > range. The challenge here is that these entries require a DeviceID,
> > which is defined as a BDF, AIUI. The IVRS is created in QEMU, but bus
> > numbers are defined by the guest firmware, and potentially redefined by
> > the guest OS. This makes it non-trivial to insert a few IVHDs into the
> > IVRS to describe alias ranges. I'm wondering if the solution here is
> > to define a new linker-loader command that would instruct the guest to
> > write a bus number byte to a given offset for a described device.
> > These commands would be inserted before the checksum command, such that
> > these bus number updates are calculated as part of the checksum.
> >
> > I'm imagining the command format would need to be able to distinguish
> > between the actual bus number of a described device, the secondary bus
> > number of the device, and the subordinate bus number of the device.
> > For describing the device, I'm envisioning stealing from the DMAR
> > definition, which already includes a bus number invariant mechanism to
> > describe a device, starting with a segment and root bus, follow a chain
> > of devfns to get to the target device. Therefore the guest firmware
> > would follow the path to the described device, pick the desired bus
> > number, and write it to the indicated table offset.
> >
> > Does this seem like a reasonable approach? Better ideas? I'm not
> > thrilled with the increased scope demanded by IVRS support, but so long
> > as we have an AMD IOMMU model, I don't see how to avoid it. Thanks,
>
> I don't have a better idea yet, but just want to say that accidentally
> I was trying to look into this as well starting from this week and I'd
> say that's mostly what I thought about too (I was still reading a bit
> seabios when I saw this email)... so at least this idea makes sense to
> me.
>
> Would the guest OS still change the PCI bus number even after the
> firmware (BIOS/UEFI)? Could I ask in what case would that happen?
>
> Thanks,
Guest OSes can in theory rebalance resources. Changing bus numbers
would be useful if new bridges are added by hotplug.
In practice at least Linux doesn't do the rebalancing.
I think that if we start reporting PNP OS support in BIOS then windows
might start doing that more aggressively.
> --
> Peter Xu