On 02/09/17 05:16, David Gibson wrote:
On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 11:40:50AM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
On 02/08/17 07:16, David Gibson wrote:
Marcel,
Your original patch adding PCIe support to virtio-pci.c has the
limitation noted below that PCIe won't be enabled if the device is on
the root bus (rather than under a root or downstream port). As
reasoned below, I think removing the check is correct, even for x86
(though it would rarely be useful there). But I could well have
missed something. Let me know if so...
Virtio devices can appear as either vanilla PCI or PCI-Express devices
depending on the bus they're connected to. At the moment it will only
appear as vanilla PCI if connected to the root bus of a PCIe host bridge.
Presumably this is to reflect the fact that PCIe devices usually need to
be connected to a root (or further downstream) port rather than directly
on the root bus. However, due to the odd requirements of the PAPR spec on the
'pseries'
machine type, it's normal for PCIe devices to appear on the root bus
without root ports.
Further, even on x86, there's no inherent reason we couldn't present a
virtio device as an "integrated device" (typically used for things built
into the PCI chipset), and those devices *do* typically appear on the root
bus.
I'm not personally making a counter-argument, just qouting some of
the relevant parts of "docs/pcie.txt" ("PCI EXPRESS GUIDELINES"):
So, an earlier discussion more or less concluded that the PCIe
guidelines don't really work with PAPR guests. That comes because
PAPR was designed with PowerVM in mind which allows PCI passthrough
but doesn't do any emulated PCI devices. So they wanted to present
passed through devices (virtual or phyical) to the guest without
inserting virtual root ports.
Now, you can argue that this was a silly decision in PAPR, and you
could well be right, but there it is.
I can totally accept this, but then we should state it as a fact near
the top of "docs/pcie.txt".
Place only the following kinds of devices directly on the Root Complex:
(1) PCI Devices (e.g. network card, graphics card, IDE controller),
not controllers. Place only legacy PCI devices on
the Root Complex. These will be considered Integrated Endpoints.
Note: Integrated Endpoints are not hot-pluggable.
Although the PCI Express spec does not forbid PCI Express devices as
Integrated Endpoints, existing hardware mostly integrates legacy PCI
devices with the Root Complex.
"Mostly".. on my laptop at least the GPU shows up as an integrated PCI
Express endpoint, so it's certainly not the case that *all* root bus
devices are legacy.
Guest OSes are suspected to behave
strangely when PCI Express devices are integrated
with the Root Complex.
Clearly not that strangely, that often, since my laptop works just fine.
[...]
2.2 PCI Express only hierarchy
==============================
Always use PCI Express Root Ports to start PCI Express hierarchies.
Above you mention "it's normal for PCIe devices to appear on the root bus without
root ports".
Well "normal" perhaps wasn't the right word. Let's say precedented,
if uncommon.
Let me turn the question around: is it a *problem* for "pseries" if
we require root ports? If so, why exactly?
That's.. a complex question. At least Linux guests (and we don't
support any others yet) might cope with the addition of root ports.
Maybe. I have discussed this option with BenH and others.
However it is gratuitously different from how PCIe devices will
typically appear for the same guest running under PowerVM. Although I
suspect Linux would cope with the "normal standard" rather than "PAPR
standard" presentation, I'm not as confident about it as I would like.
Another consideration here is that other PCIe capable qemu emulated
devices, such as XHCI, will present fine as PCIe integrated endpoints
when attached to the root bus. Libvirt won't do that usually, of
course, and it may not be the recommended way of doing things (on PC)
but it's possible. I don't see any particular reason that virtio-pci
should enforce the root port requirement more so than any other
device.
On 02/08/17 07:16, David Gibson wrote:
pcie_endpoint_cap_init() already automatically adjusts to advertise as
an integrated device rather than a "normal" PCIe endpoint when attached to
a root bus. So we can remove the check for root bus within virtio and
allow (at the user's discretion) a PCIe virtio bus to be attached to a
root bus.
If Marcel thinks this is a good change, then I think we should go
through "docs/pcie.txt" with a fine-toothed comb, and update all
relevant spots. (If Marcel agrees, perhaps you can include such
hunks in your patch at once.)
Actually, I think that would be a neverending process. Maybe better
to put in a whole different spapr-pcie.txt with the assorted ways that
PAPR violates PCIe conventions.
That works for me too, but I think it would be a lot more work for you
and others.
I plan on consulting "docs/pcie.txt" frequently; among other things, for
deciding debates. Thus, improving the scope of "docs/pcie.txt" is very
welcome IMO.
It also may have consequences for libvirt (but I see you addressed
Andrea at once, which is great).
Right, I've been discussed this with Andrea all along. We're working
on a proposed PAPR specific way of allocating PCI and PCIe addresses
(different from the PCIe normal way, but the same as each other).
That will simplify adding PCIe support to PAPR, and also has some
other advantages for PAPR guests (related to the platform specific
isolation, hotplug and error recovery mechanisms - also different
from the normal PCIe ones).
Great, if Andrea is aware, that's a relief.
Can you resubmit this patch with a small hunk for "docs/pcie.txt" that
removes PAPR from the scope?