Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-ppc] [PATCH 12/12] pseries: Generate unique LIOBNs for PCI host bridges

[Alexander Graf]

On 22.11.2012, at 08:23, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 01:27:18PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 05:27:37PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 02:27:08PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>> On 11/21/2012 02:21 PM, David Gibson wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 03:13:39PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:36:00PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 01:34:48PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:57:05AM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 02:26:09PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:27:11AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 19.11.2012, at 23:51, David Gibson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 05:34:12PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 13.11.2012, at 03:47, David Gibson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Alexey Kardashevskiy<address@hidden>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In future (with VFIO) we will have multiple PCI host bridges on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pseries.  Each one needs a unique LIOBN (IOMMU id).  At the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moment we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> derive these from the pci domain number, but the whole notion of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> domain numbers on the qemu side is bogus and in any case they're 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually uniquely allocated at this point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This patch, therefore uses a simple sequence counter to generate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unique LIOBNs for PCI host bridges.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy<address@hidden>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: David Gibson<address@hidden>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't really like the idea of having a global variable just
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because our domain ID generation seems to not work as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> expected. Michael, any comments here?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, the patch I sent which changed domain id generation was
>>>>>>>>>>>> ignored.  In any case, as I said, the whole concept of domain 
>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers
>>>>>>>>>>> Michael?
>>>>>>>>>> This is user visible, right?
>>>>>>>>>> So IMHO we should have the user specify LIOBN through a property,
>>>>>>>>>> rather than assign what's essentially a random value.
>>>>>>>>> Well, I can implement an override through a property, which could be
>>>>>>>>> useful in some circumstances.  But we still need to have qemu generate
>>>>>>>>> unique defaults, rather than forcing it to be specified in every case.
>>>>>>>> I don't see why.
>>>>>>>> And if you want automatic defaults then they need to be generated in a
>>>>>>>> way that does not depend on implementation detail such as order of
>>>>>>>> device initialization.
>>>>>>> Because requiring explicit unique liobns to be supplied whenever there
>>>>>>> is more than one PHB is horrible for usability.
>>>>>> We should make simple things simple and complex things possible.
>>>>>> More than one PHB seems like an advanced feature
>>>>> Not for pseries.  On real hardware of this type, dozens of PHBs is
>>>>> routine.  Plus, vfio passthrough is coming, we need at minimum one PHB
>>>>> for emulated devices and one for passthrough devices.
>>>> 
>>>> Yeah, I second Davids opinion here. We need to make this easy for users.
>>> 
>>> I think users don't normally create PHBs. They request a disk, a network
>>> device, a pass-through device ... In this case if this requires
>>> more PHBs create them internally but I imagine this doesn't
>>> require any allocation scheme - simply set some address
>>> for virtual devices, some other one for assigned devices ... no?
>> 
>> No.  One PHB for passthrough and one for emulated is the minimum.
>> Since we don't emulated p2p bridges,
> 
> Actually qemu does emulate p2p bridges.
> 
>> each PHB can only support a small
>> number of PCI devices, so if enough PCI devices are requested, we will
>> still need to create - and assign numbers to - additional PHBs.
> 
> Each PHB can support up to 32 slots right? This seems ample for
> a typical use. If you want many tens of devices you need to
> supply addresses manually, this looks reasonable to me.
> 
> Allocating PHBs on the fly seems unencessarily tricky.

IIRC it's required for fault isolation.

Alex

> 
>>> If user wants to play with low level detail such as PHBs I don't see why
>>> it's not reasonable to require full specification.
>>> 
>>>> How do we assign PCI slot IDs today when all you do is a -device?
>>>> This should probably follow the same scheme.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Alex
>>> 
>>> What we do is find a first free slow. But it's exactly why I worry:
>>> changing pci addresses between qemu releases has been a source of pain
>>> and compatibility hassles in the past.
>>> The problem would be more manageable if you simply reserve some fixed
>>> addresses for internal use, like we reserve slots for VGA and IDE,
>>> though even that becomes a problem as we switch to q35.
>>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> David Gibson            | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
>> david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au    | minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
>>                | _way_ _around_!
>> http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson