Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On 11/21/2016 12:13 AM, Jon Masters wrote: On 11/07/2016 07:45 PM, Will Deacon wrote: I figured this was a reasonable post to piggy-back on for the LPC minutes relating to guest MSIs on arm64. Thanks for this Will. I'm still digging out post-LPC and SC16, but the summary was much

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On 11/21/2016 12:13 AM, Jon Masters wrote: On 11/07/2016 07:45 PM, Will Deacon wrote: I figured this was a reasonable post to piggy-back on for the LPC minutes relating to guest MSIs on arm64. Thanks for this Will. I'm still digging out post-LPC and SC16, but the summary was much

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On 11/07/2016 07:45 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > I figured this was a reasonable post to piggy-back on for the LPC minutes > relating to guest MSIs on arm64. Thanks for this Will. I'm still digging out post-LPC and SC16, but the summary was much appreciated, and I'm glad the conversation is helping.

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On 11/07/2016 07:45 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > I figured this was a reasonable post to piggy-back on for the LPC minutes > relating to guest MSIs on arm64. Thanks for this Will. I'm still digging out post-LPC and SC16, but the summary was much appreciated, and I'm glad the conversation is helping.

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 09:05:43AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 08:50:56 -0700 > Alex Williamson wrote: > > > > It's really just a happenstance that we don't map RAM over the x86 MSI > > range though. That property really can't be guaranteed

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 09:05:43AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 08:50:56 -0700 > Alex Williamson wrote: > > > > It's really just a happenstance that we don't map RAM over the x86 MSI > > range though. That property really can't be guaranteed once we mix > > architectures,

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On 11/11/2016 10:50 AM, Alex Williamson wrote: On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 12:19:44 +0100 Joerg Roedel wrote: On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:46:01AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: In the case of x86, we know that DMA mappings overlapping the MSI doorbells won't be translated correctly,

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On 11/11/2016 10:50 AM, Alex Williamson wrote: On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 12:19:44 +0100 Joerg Roedel wrote: On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:46:01AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: In the case of x86, we know that DMA mappings overlapping the MSI doorbells won't be translated correctly, it's not a valid

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 08:50:56 -0700 Alex Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 12:19:44 +0100 > Joerg Roedel wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:46:01AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > > > In the case of x86, we know that DMA mappings

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 08:50:56 -0700 Alex Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 12:19:44 +0100 > Joerg Roedel wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:46:01AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > > > In the case of x86, we know that DMA mappings overlapping the MSI > > > doorbells won't be

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On 11/11/2016 06:19 AM, Joerg Roedel wrote: On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:46:01AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: In the case of x86, we know that DMA mappings overlapping the MSI doorbells won't be translated correctly, it's not a valid mapping for that range, and therefore the iommu driver backing

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On 11/11/2016 06:19 AM, Joerg Roedel wrote: On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:46:01AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: In the case of x86, we know that DMA mappings overlapping the MSI doorbells won't be translated correctly, it's not a valid mapping for that range, and therefore the iommu driver backing

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 12:19:44 +0100 Joerg Roedel wrote: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:46:01AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > > In the case of x86, we know that DMA mappings overlapping the MSI > > doorbells won't be translated correctly, it's not a valid mapping for > > that

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 12:19:44 +0100 Joerg Roedel wrote: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:46:01AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > > In the case of x86, we know that DMA mappings overlapping the MSI > > doorbells won't be translated correctly, it's not a valid mapping for > > that range, and therefore

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:46:01AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > In the case of x86, we know that DMA mappings overlapping the MSI > doorbells won't be translated correctly, it's not a valid mapping for > that range, and therefore the iommu driver backing the IOMMU API > should describe that

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:46:01AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > In the case of x86, we know that DMA mappings overlapping the MSI > doorbells won't be translated correctly, it's not a valid mapping for > that range, and therefore the iommu driver backing the IOMMU API > should describe that

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 12:14:40 +0100 Auger Eric wrote: > Hi Will, Alex, > > On 10/11/2016 03:01, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 05:55:17PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > >> On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 01:14:42 +0100 > >> Auger Eric wrote:

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 12:14:40 +0100 Auger Eric wrote: > Hi Will, Alex, > > On 10/11/2016 03:01, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 05:55:17PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > >> On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 01:14:42 +0100 > >> Auger Eric wrote: > >>> On 10/11/2016 00:59, Alex Williamson

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 15:40:07 +0100 Joerg Roedel wrote: > On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 01:01:14PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > > Well, it's not like QEMU or libvirt stumbling through sysfs to figure > > out where holes could be in order to instantiate a VM with matching > > holes,

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 15:40:07 +0100 Joerg Roedel wrote: > On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 01:01:14PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > > Well, it's not like QEMU or libvirt stumbling through sysfs to figure > > out where holes could be in order to instantiate a VM with matching > > holes, just in case

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 08:11:16PM +, Robin Murphy wrote: > When we *are* in full control of the IOVA space, we just carve out what > we can find as best we can - see iova_reserve_pci_windows() in > dma-iommu.c, which isn't really all that different to what x86 does > (e.g.

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 08:11:16PM +, Robin Murphy wrote: > When we *are* in full control of the IOVA space, we just carve out what > we can find as best we can - see iova_reserve_pci_windows() in > dma-iommu.c, which isn't really all that different to what x86 does > (e.g.

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 01:14:42AM +0100, Auger Eric wrote: > Besides above problematic, I started to prototype the sysfs API. A first > issue I face is the reserved regions become global to the iommu instead > of characterizing the iommu_domain, ie. the "reserved_regions" attribute > file sits

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 01:14:42AM +0100, Auger Eric wrote: > Besides above problematic, I started to prototype the sysfs API. A first > issue I face is the reserved regions become global to the iommu instead > of characterizing the iommu_domain, ie. the "reserved_regions" attribute > file sits

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 01:01:14PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > Well, it's not like QEMU or libvirt stumbling through sysfs to figure > out where holes could be in order to instantiate a VM with matching > holes, just in case someone might decide to hot-add a device into the > VM, at some

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 01:01:14PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > Well, it's not like QEMU or libvirt stumbling through sysfs to figure > out where holes could be in order to instantiate a VM with matching > holes, just in case someone might decide to hot-add a device into the > VM, at some

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

Hi Will, Alex, On 10/11/2016 03:01, Will Deacon wrote: > On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 05:55:17PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: >> On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 01:14:42 +0100 >> Auger Eric wrote: >>> On 10/11/2016 00:59, Alex Williamson wrote: On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 23:38:50 +

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

Hi Will, Alex, On 10/11/2016 03:01, Will Deacon wrote: > On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 05:55:17PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: >> On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 01:14:42 +0100 >> Auger Eric wrote: >>> On 10/11/2016 00:59, Alex Williamson wrote: On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 23:38:50 + Will Deacon wrote:

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 05:55:17PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 01:14:42 +0100 > Auger Eric wrote: > > On 10/11/2016 00:59, Alex Williamson wrote: > > > On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 23:38:50 + > > > Will Deacon wrote: > > >> On Wed,

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 05:55:17PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 01:14:42 +0100 > Auger Eric wrote: > > On 10/11/2016 00:59, Alex Williamson wrote: > > > On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 23:38:50 + > > > Will Deacon wrote: > > >> On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 04:24:58PM -0700, Alex

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 01:14:42 +0100 Auger Eric wrote: > Hi, > > On 10/11/2016 00:59, Alex Williamson wrote: > > On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 23:38:50 + > > Will Deacon wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 04:24:58PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: >

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 01:14:42 +0100 Auger Eric wrote: > Hi, > > On 10/11/2016 00:59, Alex Williamson wrote: > > On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 23:38:50 + > > Will Deacon wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 04:24:58PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > >>> On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 22:25:22 + > >>>

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

Hi, On 10/11/2016 00:59, Alex Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 23:38:50 + > Will Deacon wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 04:24:58PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: >>> On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 22:25:22 + >>> Will Deacon wrote: >>> On

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

Hi, On 10/11/2016 00:59, Alex Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 23:38:50 + > Will Deacon wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 04:24:58PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: >>> On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 22:25:22 + >>> Will Deacon wrote: >>> On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 03:17:09PM -0700, Alex

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 23:38:50 + Will Deacon wrote: > On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 04:24:58PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > > On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 22:25:22 + > > Will Deacon wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 03:17:09PM -0700, Alex Williamson

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 23:38:50 + Will Deacon wrote: > On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 04:24:58PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > > On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 22:25:22 + > > Will Deacon wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 03:17:09PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > > > > On Wed, 9 Nov 2016

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 04:24:58PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 22:25:22 + > Will Deacon wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 03:17:09PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > > > On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 20:31:45 + > > > Will Deacon

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 04:24:58PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 22:25:22 + > Will Deacon wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 03:17:09PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > > > On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 20:31:45 + > > > Will Deacon wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 22:25:22 + Will Deacon wrote: > On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 03:17:09PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > > On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 20:31:45 + > > Will Deacon wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 08:23:03PM +0100, Christoffer Dall

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 22:25:22 + Will Deacon wrote: > On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 03:17:09PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > > On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 20:31:45 + > > Will Deacon wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 08:23:03PM +0100, Christoffer Dall wrote: > > > > > > > > (I suppose it's

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 03:17:09PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 20:31:45 + > Will Deacon wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 08:23:03PM +0100, Christoffer Dall wrote: > > > > > > (I suppose it's technically possible to get around this issue by

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 03:17:09PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 20:31:45 + > Will Deacon wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 08:23:03PM +0100, Christoffer Dall wrote: > > > > > > (I suppose it's technically possible to get around this issue by letting > > > QEMU place

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 20:31:45 + Will Deacon wrote: > On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 08:23:03PM +0100, Christoffer Dall wrote: > > > > (I suppose it's technically possible to get around this issue by letting > > QEMU place RAM wherever it wants but tell the guest to never use a >

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 20:31:45 + Will Deacon wrote: > On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 08:23:03PM +0100, Christoffer Dall wrote: > > > > (I suppose it's technically possible to get around this issue by letting > > QEMU place RAM wherever it wants but tell the guest to never use a > > particular subset

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 08:23:03PM +0100, Christoffer Dall wrote: > On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 01:59:07PM -0500, Don Dutile wrote: > > On 11/09/2016 12:03 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > > >On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 09:52:33PM -0500, Don Dutile wrote: > > >>On 11/08/2016 06:35 PM, Alex Williamson wrote: > >

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 08:23:03PM +0100, Christoffer Dall wrote: > On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 01:59:07PM -0500, Don Dutile wrote: > > On 11/09/2016 12:03 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > > >On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 09:52:33PM -0500, Don Dutile wrote: > > >>On 11/08/2016 06:35 PM, Alex Williamson wrote: > >

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On 09/11/16 18:59, Don Dutile wrote: > On 11/09/2016 12:03 PM, Will Deacon wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 09:52:33PM -0500, Don Dutile wrote: >>> On 11/08/2016 06:35 PM, Alex Williamson wrote: On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 21:29:22 +0100 Christoffer Dall wrote:

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On 09/11/16 18:59, Don Dutile wrote: > On 11/09/2016 12:03 PM, Will Deacon wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 09:52:33PM -0500, Don Dutile wrote: >>> On 11/08/2016 06:35 PM, Alex Williamson wrote: On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 21:29:22 +0100 Christoffer Dall wrote: > Is my understanding

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 20:23:03 +0100 Christoffer Dall wrote: > On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 01:59:07PM -0500, Don Dutile wrote: > > On 11/09/2016 12:03 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > > >On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 09:52:33PM -0500, Don Dutile wrote: > > >>On 11/08/2016 06:35 PM,

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 20:23:03 +0100 Christoffer Dall wrote: > On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 01:59:07PM -0500, Don Dutile wrote: > > On 11/09/2016 12:03 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > > >On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 09:52:33PM -0500, Don Dutile wrote: > > >>On 11/08/2016 06:35 PM, Alex Williamson wrote: > >

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 01:59:07PM -0500, Don Dutile wrote: > On 11/09/2016 12:03 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > >On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 09:52:33PM -0500, Don Dutile wrote: > >>On 11/08/2016 06:35 PM, Alex Williamson wrote: > >>>On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 21:29:22 +0100 > >>>Christoffer Dall

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 01:59:07PM -0500, Don Dutile wrote: > On 11/09/2016 12:03 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > >On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 09:52:33PM -0500, Don Dutile wrote: > >>On 11/08/2016 06:35 PM, Alex Williamson wrote: > >>>On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 21:29:22 +0100 > >>>Christoffer Dall wrote: > Is

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On 11/09/2016 12:03 PM, Will Deacon wrote: On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 09:52:33PM -0500, Don Dutile wrote: On 11/08/2016 06:35 PM, Alex Williamson wrote: On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 21:29:22 +0100 Christoffer Dall wrote: Is my understanding correct, that you need to tell

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On 11/09/2016 12:03 PM, Will Deacon wrote: On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 09:52:33PM -0500, Don Dutile wrote: On 11/08/2016 06:35 PM, Alex Williamson wrote: On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 21:29:22 +0100 Christoffer Dall wrote: Is my understanding correct, that you need to tell userspace about the location of

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 09:52:33PM -0500, Don Dutile wrote: > On 11/08/2016 06:35 PM, Alex Williamson wrote: > >On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 21:29:22 +0100 > >Christoffer Dall wrote: > >>Is my understanding correct, that you need to tell userspace about the > >>location of the

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 09:52:33PM -0500, Don Dutile wrote: > On 11/08/2016 06:35 PM, Alex Williamson wrote: > >On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 21:29:22 +0100 > >Christoffer Dall wrote: > >>Is my understanding correct, that you need to tell userspace about the > >>location of the doorbell (in the IOVA space)

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

Hi Will, On 08/11/2016 20:02, Don Dutile wrote: > On 11/08/2016 12:54 PM, Will Deacon wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 03:27:23PM +0100, Auger Eric wrote: >>> On 08/11/2016 03:45, Will Deacon wrote: Rather than treat these as separate problems, a better interface is to tell userspace

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

Hi Will, On 08/11/2016 20:02, Don Dutile wrote: > On 11/08/2016 12:54 PM, Will Deacon wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 03:27:23PM +0100, Auger Eric wrote: >>> On 08/11/2016 03:45, Will Deacon wrote: Rather than treat these as separate problems, a better interface is to tell userspace

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On 11/08/2016 06:35 PM, Alex Williamson wrote: On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 21:29:22 +0100 Christoffer Dall wrote: Hi Will, On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 02:45:59AM +, Will Deacon wrote: Hi all, I figured this was a reasonable post to piggy-back on for the LPC minutes

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On 11/08/2016 06:35 PM, Alex Williamson wrote: On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 21:29:22 +0100 Christoffer Dall wrote: Hi Will, On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 02:45:59AM +, Will Deacon wrote: Hi all, I figured this was a reasonable post to piggy-back on for the LPC minutes relating to guest MSIs on arm64.

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe (was: Re: [RFC 0/8] KVM PCIe/MSI passthrough on ARM/ARM64 (Alt II))

On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 21:29:22 +0100 Christoffer Dall wrote: > Hi Will, > > On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 02:45:59AM +, Will Deacon wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I figured this was a reasonable post to piggy-back on for the LPC minutes > > relating to guest MSIs on arm64.

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe (was: Re: [RFC 0/8] KVM PCIe/MSI passthrough on ARM/ARM64 (Alt II))

On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 21:29:22 +0100 Christoffer Dall wrote: > Hi Will, > > On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 02:45:59AM +, Will Deacon wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I figured this was a reasonable post to piggy-back on for the LPC minutes > > relating to guest MSIs on arm64. > > > > On Thu, Nov 03, 2016

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe (was: Re: [RFC 0/8] KVM PCIe/MSI passthrough on ARM/ARM64 (Alt II))

Hi Will, On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 02:45:59AM +, Will Deacon wrote: > Hi all, > > I figured this was a reasonable post to piggy-back on for the LPC minutes > relating to guest MSIs on arm64. > > On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 10:02:05PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > > We can always have QEMU

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe (was: Re: [RFC 0/8] KVM PCIe/MSI passthrough on ARM/ARM64 (Alt II))

Hi Will, On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 02:45:59AM +, Will Deacon wrote: > Hi all, > > I figured this was a reasonable post to piggy-back on for the LPC minutes > relating to guest MSIs on arm64. > > On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 10:02:05PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > > We can always have QEMU

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 02:02:39PM -0500, Don Dutile wrote: > On 11/08/2016 12:54 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > >A first step would be making all this opt-in, and only supporting GICv3 > >ITS for now. > You're trying to support a config that is < GICv3 and no ITS ? ... > That would be the equiv. of x86

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 02:02:39PM -0500, Don Dutile wrote: > On 11/08/2016 12:54 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > >A first step would be making all this opt-in, and only supporting GICv3 > >ITS for now. > You're trying to support a config that is < GICv3 and no ITS ? ... > That would be the equiv. of x86

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On 11/08/2016 12:54 PM, Will Deacon wrote: On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 03:27:23PM +0100, Auger Eric wrote: On 08/11/2016 03:45, Will Deacon wrote: Rather than treat these as separate problems, a better interface is to tell userspace about a set of reserved regions, and have this include the MSI

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On 11/08/2016 12:54 PM, Will Deacon wrote: On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 03:27:23PM +0100, Auger Eric wrote: On 08/11/2016 03:45, Will Deacon wrote: Rather than treat these as separate problems, a better interface is to tell userspace about a set of reserved regions, and have this include the MSI

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 03:27:23PM +0100, Auger Eric wrote: > On 08/11/2016 03:45, Will Deacon wrote: > > Rather than treat these as separate problems, a better interface is to > > tell userspace about a set of reserved regions, and have this include > > the MSI doorbell, irrespective of whether

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 03:27:23PM +0100, Auger Eric wrote: > On 08/11/2016 03:45, Will Deacon wrote: > > Rather than treat these as separate problems, a better interface is to > > tell userspace about a set of reserved regions, and have this include > > the MSI doorbell, irrespective of whether

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On 11/07/2016 09:45 PM, Will Deacon wrote: Hi all, I figured this was a reasonable post to piggy-back on for the LPC minutes relating to guest MSIs on arm64. On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 10:02:05PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: We can always have QEMU reject hot-adding the device if the reserved

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On 11/07/2016 09:45 PM, Will Deacon wrote: Hi all, I figured this was a reasonable post to piggy-back on for the LPC minutes relating to guest MSIs on arm64. On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 10:02:05PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: We can always have QEMU reject hot-adding the device if the reserved

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

Hi Will, On 08/11/2016 03:45, Will Deacon wrote: > Hi all, > > I figured this was a reasonable post to piggy-back on for the LPC minutes > relating to guest MSIs on arm64. > > On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 10:02:05PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: >> We can always have QEMU reject hot-adding the

Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

Hi Will, On 08/11/2016 03:45, Will Deacon wrote: > Hi all, > > I figured this was a reasonable post to piggy-back on for the LPC minutes > relating to guest MSIs on arm64. > > On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 10:02:05PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: >> We can always have QEMU reject hot-adding the

Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe (was: Re: [RFC 0/8] KVM PCIe/MSI passthrough on ARM/ARM64 (Alt II))

Hi all, I figured this was a reasonable post to piggy-back on for the LPC minutes relating to guest MSIs on arm64. On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 10:02:05PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > We can always have QEMU reject hot-adding the device if the reserved > region overlaps existing guest RAM, but I

Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe (was: Re: [RFC 0/8] KVM PCIe/MSI passthrough on ARM/ARM64 (Alt II))

Hi all, I figured this was a reasonable post to piggy-back on for the LPC minutes relating to guest MSIs on arm64. On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 10:02:05PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > We can always have QEMU reject hot-adding the device if the reserved > region overlaps existing guest RAM, but I