qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v14 3/4] introduce pvevent device to deal with p


From: Alexander Graf
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v14 3/4] introduce pvevent device to deal with panicked event
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:23:01 +0100

On 14.03.2013, at 12:03, Paolo Bonzini wrote:

> Il 14/03/2013 12:00, Alexander Graf ha scritto:
>> 
>> On 14.03.2013, at 10:43, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> 
>>> Il 14/03/2013 10:19, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
>>>> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 10:14:12AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>>>> Il 14/03/2013 09:15, Hu Tao ha scritto:
>>>>>> pvevent device is used to send guest panic event from guest to qemu.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> When guest panic happens, pvevent device driver will write a event
>>>>>> number to IO port 0x505(which is the IO port occupied by pvevent device,
>>>>>> by default). On receiving the event, pvevent device will pause guest
>>>>>> cpu(s), and send a qmp event QEVENT_GUEST_PANICKED.  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> TODO: make the IO port configurable
>>>>> 
>>>>> The port is already configurable as far as the device is concerned; when
>>>>> you add the port to the PC boards you will have to wind up fw-cfg.
>>>> 
>>>> Why not add fw-cfg when device is created (with -device for instance)?
>>> 
>>> It depends on what we decide is the supported interface for the device:
>>> 
>>> * it can be an ISA device; the interface is the I/O port and ACPI
>> 
>> Is there any particular reason it's an ISA device with a PIO port,
>> rather than a platform / sysbus device with MMIO access? With the
>> latter, we could easily reuse the device on other platforms (ppc, arm)
>> and even the guest driver code for platforms that do ACPI (arm?).
> 
> Where would you place the MMIO area on x86?  

Wherever the board thinks it makes sense.

> But anyway you can easily
> define an MMIO variant, the guest driver code will be shared (the ACPI
> in the firmware no, of course).

Yes, at which point we have 2 variants where we could have had 1. I don't know 
if it's worth caring about it, just wanted to bring it up.

> 
>> Also, don't the Xen guys already have a similar interface? Could we at least 
>> share the guest side implementation maybe?
> 
> I think Xen uses xenstore for this, or a hypercall I don't remember.
> But not something that can be shared unfortunately.

At least the guest kernel hook could be shared. In fact, how does that one work 
with this device? I've only seen an ACPI patch so far. Does ACPI already 
support panic hooks?


Alex




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]