All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>,
	Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs just because there's no local APIC
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:09:17 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4A3AACFD.5020805@goop.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <m1ab45i8vs.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>

On 06/18/09 13:28, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>> How does Xen handle domU with hardware directly mapped?
>>>   
>>>       
>> We call that "pci passthrough".  Dom0 will bind the gsi to a pirq as
>> usual, and then pass the pirq through to the domU.  The domU will bind
>> the pirq to an event channel, which gets mapped to a Linux irq and
>> handled as usual.
>>     
>
> Interesting.  How does domU find out the pirq -> pci device mapping?
>   

Hm, I haven't looked at it closely, but conventionally it would be via
xenbus (which is how all the split frontend-backend drivers communicate).

>> It is already; once the pirq is prepared, the process is the same in
>> both cases.
>>     
>
> I 3/4 believe that.  map_domain_pirq  appears to setup a per domain
> mapping between the hardware vector and the irq name it is known as.
> So I don't see how that works for other domains.
>
> msi is setup on a per domain basis.
>   

Ah, OK.  The pirq is set up for a specific domain rather than being
global (otherwise it would need some kind of "which domain can access
which pirq" table).  dom0 can either create a pirq for itself or someone
else, and the final user of the pirq binds it to a domain-local evtchn.

I think.  I really haven't looked into the pci-passthrough parts very
closely yet.

    J

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc: Xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs just because there's no local APIC
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:09:17 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4A3AACFD.5020805@goop.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <m1ab45i8vs.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>

On 06/18/09 13:28, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>> How does Xen handle domU with hardware directly mapped?
>>>   
>>>       
>> We call that "pci passthrough".  Dom0 will bind the gsi to a pirq as
>> usual, and then pass the pirq through to the domU.  The domU will bind
>> the pirq to an event channel, which gets mapped to a Linux irq and
>> handled as usual.
>>     
>
> Interesting.  How does domU find out the pirq -> pci device mapping?
>   

Hm, I haven't looked at it closely, but conventionally it would be via
xenbus (which is how all the split frontend-backend drivers communicate).

>> It is already; once the pirq is prepared, the process is the same in
>> both cases.
>>     
>
> I 3/4 believe that.  map_domain_pirq  appears to setup a per domain
> mapping between the hardware vector and the irq name it is known as.
> So I don't see how that works for other domains.
>
> msi is setup on a per domain basis.
>   

Ah, OK.  The pirq is set up for a specific domain rather than being
global (otherwise it would need some kind of "which domain can access
which pirq" table).  dom0 can either create a pirq for itself or someone
else, and the final user of the pirq binds it to a domain-local evtchn.

I think.  I really haven't looked into the pci-passthrough parts very
closely yet.

    J

  reply	other threads:[~2009-06-18 21:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 79+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-06-12 18:22 [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs just because there's no local APIC Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-12 18:22 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-12 18:28 ` Alan Cox
2009-06-12 18:28   ` Alan Cox
2009-06-12 18:33   ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-12 18:33     ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-12 20:11 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2009-06-15  2:01   ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-12 20:35 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-12 20:35   ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-15  2:06   ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-15 10:47     ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-15 10:47       ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-15 20:49       ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-15 20:49         ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-15 21:58         ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-15 21:58           ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-16 19:38           ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-16 19:38             ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-17  5:10             ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-17  5:10               ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-17 12:02             ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-17 12:02               ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-17 17:32               ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-17 17:32                 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-18  2:58                 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-18  2:58                   ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-18 19:34                   ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-18 19:34                     ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-18 20:28                     ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-18 21:09                       ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge [this message]
2009-06-18 21:09                         ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-19  1:38                         ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-19  1:38                           ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-19  3:10                           ` [Xen-devel] " Jiang, Yunhong
2009-06-19  3:10                             ` Jiang, Yunhong
2009-06-18 12:26                 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-15 10:51 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-15 10:51   ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-18 16:08 ` Len Brown
2009-06-18 19:14   ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-18 19:14     ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-18 19:27     ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-18 19:48       ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-18 19:48         ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-18 20:39         ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-18 22:33           ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-18 22:33             ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-19  2:42             ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-19  2:42               ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-19 19:58               ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-19 19:58                 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-19 23:44                 ` [Xen-devel] " Nakajima, Jun
2009-06-19 23:44                   ` Nakajima, Jun
2009-06-20  7:39                   ` [Xen-devel] " Keir Fraser
2009-06-20  7:39                     ` Keir Fraser
2009-06-20  8:21                     ` [Xen-devel] " Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-20  8:21                       ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-20  8:57                       ` [Xen-devel] " Tian, Kevin
2009-06-20  8:57                         ` Tian, Kevin
2009-06-20 10:22                         ` [Xen-devel] " Keir Fraser
2009-06-20 10:22                           ` Keir Fraser
2009-06-20  8:18                   ` [Xen-devel] " Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-20  8:18                     ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-19  5:32             ` Yinghai Lu
2009-06-19  5:32               ` Yinghai Lu
2009-06-19  5:50               ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-19  5:50                 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-19  7:52               ` [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs justbecause " Jan Beulich
2009-06-19  7:52                 ` Jan Beulich
2009-06-19  8:16                 ` [Xen-devel] " Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-19  8:16                   ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-20  3:58                   ` [Xen-devel] " Yinghai Lu
2009-06-20  3:58                     ` Yinghai Lu
2009-06-20  5:40                     ` [Xen-devel] " Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-20  5:40                       ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-20  5:58                       ` [Xen-devel] " Yinghai Lu
2009-06-20  5:58                         ` Yinghai Lu
2009-06-18 22:51     ` [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs just because " Maciej W. Rozycki

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=4A3AACFD.5020805@goop.org \
    --to=jeremy@goop.org \
    --cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xensource.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.