[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b68163be-ad43-7773-22ff-e83191886626@suse.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 16:48:03 +0200
From: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
To: Oleksandr <olekstysh@...il.com>,
Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr_tyshchenko@...m.com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Julien Grall <julien@....org>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 6/6] arm/xen: Assign xen-virtio DMA ops for virtio
devices in Xen guests
On 19.04.22 14:17, Oleksandr wrote:
>
> Hello Stefano, Juergen
>
>
> On 18.04.22 22:11, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2022, Oleksandr wrote:
>>> On 16.04.22 09:07, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Christoph
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 03:02:45PM -0700, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>>>> This makes sense overall. Considering that the swiotlb-xen case and the
>>>>> virtio case are mutually exclusive, I would write it like this:
>>>> Curious question: Why can't the same grant scheme also be used for
>>>> non-virtio devices? I really hate having virtio hooks in the arch
>>>> dma code. Why can't Xen just say in DT/ACPI that grants can be used
>>>> for a given device?
>> [...]
>>
>>> This patch series tries to make things work with "virtio" devices in Xen
>>> system without introducing any modifications to code under drivers/virtio.
>>
>> Actually, I think Christoph has a point.
>>
>> There is nothing inherently virtio specific in this patch series or in
>> the "xen,dev-domid" device tree binding.
>
>
> Although the main intention of this series was to enable using virtio devices in
> Xen guests, I agree that nothing in new DMA ops layer (xen-virtio.c) is virtio
> specific (at least at the moment). Regarding the whole patch series I am not
> quite sure, as it uses arch_has_restricted_virtio_memory_access(). >
>> Assuming a given device is
>> emulated by a Xen backend, it could be used with grants as well.
>>
>> For instance, we could provide an emulated e1000 NIC with a
>> "xen,dev-domid" property in device tree. Linux could use grants with it
>> and the backend could map the grants. It would work the same way as
>> virtio-net/block/etc. Passthrough devices wouldn't have the
>> "xen,dev-domid" property, so no problems.
>>
>> So I think we could easily generalize this work and expand it to any
>> device. We just need to hook on the "xen,dev-domid" device tree
>> property.
>>
>> I think it is just a matter of:
>> - remove the "virtio,mmio" check from xen_is_virtio_device
>> - rename xen_is_virtio_device to something more generic, like
>> xen_is_grants_device
xen_is_grants_dma_device, please. Normal Xen PV devices are covered by
grants, too, and I'd like to avoid the confusion arising from this.
>> - rename xen_virtio_setup_dma_ops to something more generic, like
>> xen_grants_setup_dma_ops
>>
>> And that's pretty much it.
>
> + likely renaming everything in that patch series not to mention virtio (mostly
> related to xen-virtio.c internals).
>
>
> Stefano, thank you for clarifying Christoph's point.
>
> Well, I am not against going this direction. Could we please make a decision on
> this? @Juergen, what is your opinion?
Yes, why not.
Maybe rename xen-virtio.c to grant-dma.c?
I'd keep the XEN_VIRTIO related config option, as this will be the normal use
case. grant-dma.c should be covered by a new hidden config option XEN_GRANT_DMA
selected by XEN_VIRTIO.
CONFIG_XEN_VIRTIO should still guard xen_has_restricted_virtio_memory_access().
Juergen
Download attachment "OpenPGP_0xB0DE9DD628BF132F.asc" of type "application/pgp-keys" (3099 bytes)
Download attachment "OpenPGP_signature" of type "application/pgp-signature" (496 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists