On 11/13/20 4:23 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 13.11.2020 13:41, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
>> On 11/13/20 1:35 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 13.11.2020 12:02, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
>>>> On 11/13/20 12:50 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 13.11.2020 11:46, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/13/20 12:25 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>> On 13.11.2020 07:32, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
>>>>>>>> I'll try to replace is_hardware_domain with something like:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +/*
>>>>>>>> + * Detect whether physical PCI devices in this segment belong
>>>>>>>> + * to the domain given, e.g. on x86 all PCI devices live in hwdom,
>>>>>>>> + * but in case of ARM this might not be the case: those may also
>>>>>>>> + * live in driver domains or even Xen itself.
>>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>>> +bool pci_is_hardware_domain(struct domain *d, u16 seg)
>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86
>>>>>>>> + return is_hardware_domain(d);
>>>>>>>> +#elif CONFIG_ARM
>>>>>>>> + return pci_is_owner_domain(d, seg);
>>>>>>>> +#else
>>>>>>>> +#error "Unsupported architecture"
>>>>>>>> +#endif
>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +/*
>>>>>>>> + * Get domain which owns this segment: for x86 this is always hardware
>>>>>>>> + * domain and for ARM this can be different.
>>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>>> +struct domain *pci_get_hardware_domain(u16 seg)
>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86
>>>>>>>> + return hardware_domain;
>>>>>>>> +#elif CONFIG_ARM
>>>>>>>> + return pci_get_owner_domain(seg);
>>>>>>>> +#else
>>>>>>>> +#error "Unsupported architecture"
>>>>>>>> +#endif
>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is what I use to properly detect the domain that really owns
>>>>>>>> physical host bridge
>>>>>>> I consider this problematic. We should try to not let Arm's and x86'es
>>>>>>> PCI implementations diverge too much, i.e. at least the underlying basic
>>>>>>> model would better be similar. For example, if entire segments can be
>>>>>>> assigned to a driver domain on Arm, why should the same not be possible
>>>>>>> on x86?
>>>>>> Good question, probably in this case x86 == ARM and I can use
>>>>>>
>>>>>> pci_is_owner_domain for both architectures instead of using
>>>>>> is_hardware_domain for x86
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Furthermore I'm suspicious about segments being the right granularity
>>>>>>> here. On ia64 multiple host bridges could (and typically would) live
>>>>>>> on segment 0. Iirc I had once seen output from an x86 system which was
>>>>>>> apparently laid out similarly. Therefore, just like for MCFG, I think
>>>>>>> the granularity wants to be bus ranges within a segment.
>>>>>> Can you please suggest something we can use as a hint for such a
>>>>>> detection logic?
>>>>> The underlying information comes from ACPI tables, iirc. I don't
>>>>> recall the details, though - sorry.
>>>> Ok, so seg + bus should be enough for both ARM and Xen then, right?
>>>>
>>>> pci_get_hardware_domain(u16 seg, u8 bus)
>>> Whether an individual bus number can suitable express things I can't
>>> tell; I did say bus range, but of course if you care about just
>>> individual devices, then a single bus number will of course do.
>> I can implement the lookup whether a PCI host bridge owned by a particular
>>
>> domain with something like:
>>
>> struct pci_host_bridge *bridge = pci_find_host_bridge(seg, bus);
>>
>> return bridge->dt_node->used_by == d->domain_id;
>>
>> Could you please give me a hint how this can be done on x86?
> Bridges can't be assigned to other than the hardware domain right
> now.
So, I can probably then have pci_get_hardware_domain implemented
by both ARM and x86 in their arch specific code. And for x86 for now
it can simply be a wrapper for is_hardware_domain?
> Earlier on I didn't say you should get this to work, only
> that I think the general logic around what you add shouldn't make
> things more arch specific than they really should be. That said,
> something similar to the above should still be doable on x86,
> utilizing struct pci_seg's bus2bridge[]. There ought to be
> DEV_TYPE_PCI_HOST_BRIDGE entries there, albeit a number of them
> (provided by the CPUs themselves rather than the chipset) aren't
> really host bridges for the purposes you're after.
You mean I can still use DEV_TYPE_PCI_HOST_BRIDGE as a marker
while trying to detect what I need?
>
> Jan
Thank you,
Oleksandr
