On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 05:58:38PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 08:23:04PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin
> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Is there an actual real pr
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>
>> The IOAPIC is actually closer to ISA, but again it's sufficient to
>> move it to the PCI address space. I doubt its priority matters.
>
> Well moving IOAPIC to PCI seems strange, it's not a PCI thing,
> and I think it can be moved o
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 08:23:04PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Is there an actual real problem that needs fixing?
>> >
>> > Yes. Guests sometimes cause device BARs t
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 08:23:04PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>
> >> Is there an actual real problem that needs fixing?
> >
> > Yes. Guests sometimes cause device BARs to temporary overlap
> > the APIC range during BAR sizing. It works
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>
>> Is there an actual real problem that needs fixing?
>
> Yes. Guests sometimes cause device BARs to temporary overlap
> the APIC range during BAR sizing. It works fine on a physical
> system but fails on KVM since pci has same priority
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 07:02:15PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 6:50 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >> > As you see, ioapic at 0xfec0 overlaps pci-hole.
> >> > ioapic is guest programmable in theory - should use _overlap?
> >> > pci-hole is not but can overlap with ioapi
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 6:50 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> > As you see, ioapic at 0xfec0 overlaps pci-hole.
>> > ioapic is guest programmable in theory - should use _overlap?
>> > pci-hole is not but can overlap with ioapic.
>> > So also _overlap?
>>
>> It's a bug. The ioapic is in the pc
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 05:07:02PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 04:14:39PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >
> > But some parents are system created and shared by many devices so children
> > for
> > such have no idea
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 04:14:39PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
> But some parents are system created and shared by many devices so children for
> such have no idea who their siblings are.
>
> Please take a look at the typical map in this
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 02:34:20PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 14 February 2013 14:02, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > Well that's the status quo. One of the issues is, you have
> > no idea what else uses each priority. With this change,
> > at least you can grep for it.
>
> No, because most o
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 04:14:39PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 12:56:02PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >> On 14 February 2013 12:45, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >> > overlap flag in the region is currently unus
On 14 February 2013 14:02, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Well that's the status quo. One of the issues is, you have
> no idea what else uses each priority. With this change,
> at least you can grep for it.
No, because most of the code you find will be setting
priorities for completely irrelevant co
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 01:22:18PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 14 February 2013 13:09, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 12:56:02PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> >> Up to the parent which controls the region
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 12:56:02PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 14 February 2013 12:45, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> > overlap flag in the region is currently unused, most devices have no
>> > idea whether their region overlaps wit
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 01:22:18PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 14 February 2013 13:09, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 12:56:02PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >> Up to the parent which controls the region being mapped into.
> >
> > We could just assume same priority as
On 14 February 2013 13:09, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 12:56:02PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> Up to the parent which controls the region being mapped into.
>
> We could just assume same priority as parent
Er, no. I mean the code in control of the parent MR sets the
prio
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 12:56:02PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 14 February 2013 12:45, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > overlap flag in the region is currently unused, most devices have no
> > idea whether their region overlaps with anything, so drop it,
> > assume that all regions can overlap a
On 14 February 2013 12:45, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> overlap flag in the region is currently unused, most devices have no
> idea whether their region overlaps with anything, so drop it,
> assume that all regions can overlap and always require priority.
Devices themselves shouldn't care, for the
overlap flag in the region is currently unused, most devices have no
idea whether their region overlaps with anything, so drop it,
assume that all regions can overlap and always require priority.
It's also not clear how should devices allocate priorities.
As a first step, define a set of symbolic
19 matches
Mail list logo
