On Mon, 2015-06-15 at 18:17 +0200, Eric Auger wrote: > Hi Alex, all, > On 06/12/2015 09:03 PM, Alex Williamson wrote: > > On Fri, 2015-06-12 at 21:48 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > >> On 06/12/2015 06:41 PM, Alex Williamson wrote: > >>> On Fri, 2015-06-12 at 00:23 +0000, Wu, Feng wrote: > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: Avi Kivity [mailto:avi.kivity@xxxxxxxxx] > >>>>> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 3:59 AM > >>>>> To: Wu, Feng; kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >>>>> Cc: pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx; mtosatti@xxxxxxxxxx; > >>>>> alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx; eric.auger@xxxxxxxxxx > >>>>> Subject: Re: [v4 08/16] KVM: kvm-vfio: User API for IRQ forwarding > >>>>> > >>>>> On 06/11/2015 01:51 PM, Feng Wu wrote: > >>>>>> From: Eric Auger <eric.auger@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This patch adds and documents a new KVM_DEV_VFIO_DEVICE group > >>>>>> and 2 device attributes: KVM_DEV_VFIO_DEVICE_FORWARD_IRQ, > >>>>>> KVM_DEV_VFIO_DEVICE_UNFORWARD_IRQ. The purpose is to be able > >>>>>> to set a VFIO device IRQ as forwarded or not forwarded. > >>>>>> the command takes as argument a handle to a new struct named > >>>>>> kvm_vfio_dev_irq. > >>>>> Is there no way to do this automatically? After all, vfio knows that a > >>>>> device interrupt is forwarded to some eventfd, and kvm knows that some > >>>>> eventfd is forwarded to a guest interrupt. If they compare notes > >>>>> through a central registry, they can figure out that the interrupt needs > >>>>> to be forwarded. > >>>> Oh, just like Eric mentioned in his reply, this description is out of context of > >>>> this series, I will remove them in the next version. > >>> > >>> I suspect Avi's question was more general. While forward/unforward is > >>> out of context for this series, it's very similar in nature to > >>> enabling/disabling posted interrupts. So I think the question remains > >>> whether we really need userspace to participate in creating this > >>> shortcut or if kvm and vfio can some how orchestrate figuring it out > >>> automatically. > >>> > >>> Personally I don't know how we could do it automatically. We've always > >>> relied on userspace to independently setup vfio and kvm such that > >>> neither have any idea that the other is there and update each side > >>> independently when anything changes. So it seems consistent to continue > >>> that here. It doesn't seem like there's much to gain performance-wise > >>> either, updates should be a relatively rare event I'd expect. > >>> > >>> There's really no metadata associated with an eventfd, so "comparing > >>> notes" automatically might imply some central registration entity. That > >>> immediately sounds like a much more complex solution, but maybe Avi has > >>> some ideas to manage it. Thanks, > >>> > >> > >> The idea is to have a central registry maintained by a posted interrupts > >> manager. Both vfio and kvm pass the filp (along with extra information) > >> to the posted interrupts manager, which, when it detects a filp match, > >> tells each of them what to do. > >> > >> The advantages are: > >> - old userspace gains the optimization without change > >> - a userspace API is more expensive to maintain than internal kernel > >> interfaces (CVEs, documentation, maintaining backwards compatibility) > >> - if you can do it without a new interface, this indicates that all the > >> information in the new interface is redundant. That means you have to > >> check it for consistency with the existing information, so it's extra > >> work (likely, it's exactly what the posted interrupt manager would be > >> doing anyway). > > > > Yep, those all sound like good things and I believe that's similar in > > design to the way we had originally discussed this interaction at > > LPC/KVM Forum several years ago. I'd be in favor of that approach. > > I guess this discussion also is relevant wrt "[RFC v6 00/16] KVM-VFIO > IRQ forward control" series? Or is that "central registry maintained by > a posted interrupts manager" something more specific to x86? I'd think we'd want it for any sort of offload and supporting both posted-interrupts and irq-forwarding would be a good validation. I imagine there would be registration/de-registration callbacks separate for interrupt producers vs interrupt consumers. Each registration function would likely provide a struct of callbacks, probably similar to the get_symbol callbacks proposed for the kvm-vfio device on the IRQ producer side. The eventfd would be the token that the manager would use to match producers and consumers. The hard part is probably figuring out what information to retrieve from the producer and provide to the consumer in a generic way between pci and platform, but as an internal interface, it's not a big deal if we screw it up a few times to start. Thanks, Alex -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
