On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 10:08:37AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 07:59:33AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> > >> > On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 03:01:50PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote: > >> > You mean make BAR0 an MMIO BAR? > >> > Yes, it would break current windows guests. > >> > Further, as long as we use same address to notify all queues, > >> > we would also need to decode the instruction on x86 and that's > >> > measureably slower than PIO. > >> > We could go back to discussing hypercall use for notifications, > >> > but that has its own set of issues... > >> > >> So... does "violating the PCI-e" spec really matter? Is it preventing > >> any guest from working properly? > > > > Yes, absolutely, this wording in spec is not there without reason. > > > > Existing guests allocate io space for PCI express ports in > > multiples on 4K. > > > > Since each express device is behind such a port, this means > > at most 15 such devices can use IO ports in a system. > > > > That's why to make a pci express virtio device, > > we must allow MMIO and/or some other communication > > mechanism as the spec requires. > > This is precisely why this is an ABI breaker. > > If you disable IO bars in the BIOS, than the interface that the OS sees > will *not have an IO bar*. > > This *breaks existing guests*. > Any time the programming interfaces changes on a PCI device, the > revision ID and/or device ID must change. The spec is very clear about > this. > > We cannot disable the IO BAR without changing revision ID/device ID. > But it's a bios/PC issue. It's not a device issue. Anyway, let's put express aside. It's easy to create non-working setups with pci, today: - create 16 pci bridges - put one virtio device behind each boom Try it. I want to fix that. > > That's on x86. > > > > Besides x86, there are achitectures where IO is unavailable or very slow. > > > >> I don't think we should rush an ABI breakage if the only benefit is > >> claiming spec compliance. > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Anthony Liguori > > > > Why do you bring this up? No one advocates any ABI breakage, > > I only suggest extensions. > > It's an ABI breakage. You're claiming that the guests you tested > handle the breakage reasonably but it is unquestionably an ABI breakage. > > Regards, > > Anthony Liguori Adding BAR is not an ABI breakage, do we agree on that? Disabling IO would be but I am not proposing disabling IO. Guests might disable IO. I propose a way to make virtio still work if they do. This is *fixing* things. Not breaking. > > > > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > MST > >> > -- > >> > 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 > > -- > > 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 _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
