Make KVM/MSI code device-ID-aware
cover Make KVM/MSI code device-ID-aware
This small series is actually an extraction from vITS support RFC
(https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-09/msg07074.html).
Nobody reviewed it so far, however some bits of it could actually be applied early. This series consists only of those parts, which do not depend on any new unreleased kernel APIs.
Pavel Fedin (3):
kvm: Make KVM_CAP_SIGNAL_MSI globally available hw/pci: Introduce msi_device_id()
kvm: Pass PCI device pointer to MSI routing functions
hw/i386/kvm/pci-assign.c | 9 +++++---- hw/pci/msi.c | 2 +- hw/vfio/pci.c | 11 ++++++----- hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c | 5 +++-- include/hw/pci/msi.h | 5 +++++ include/sysemu/kvm.h | 14 ++++++++++++-- kvm-all.c | 15 ++++++++------- kvm-stub.c | 5 +++-- 8 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
Signature · 1 line
2.4.4
PATCH 1/3 kvm: Make KVM_CAP_SIGNAL_MSI globally available
This capability is useful to determine whether we can use KVM ITS emulation on ARM
--- include/sysemu/kvm.h | 9 +++++++++ kvm-all.c | 10 +++++----- 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
include/sysemu/kvm.h +9 -0
@@ -52,6 +52,7 @@ extern bool kvm_msi_via_irqfd_allowed;extern bool kvm_gsi_routing_allowed;extern bool kvm_gsi_direct_mapping;extern bool kvm_readonly_mem_allowed; +extern bool kvm_direct_msi_allowed;#if definedCONFIG_KVM || !definedNEED_CPU_H #define kvm_enabled () (kvm_allowed)
@@ -145,6 +146,13 @@ extern bool kvm_readonly_mem_allowed;*/ #define kvm_readonly_mem_enabled () (kvm_readonly_mem_allowed) +/** +* kvm_direct_msi_enabled: +* +* Returns: true if KVM allows direct MSI injection. +*/ +#define kvm_direct_msi_enabled () (kvm_direct_msi_allowed) +#else #define kvm_enabled () (0)#define kvm_irqchip_in_kernel () (false)
@@ -157,6 +165,7 @@ extern bool kvm_readonly_mem_allowed;#define kvm_gsi_routing_allowed () (false)#define kvm_gsi_direct_mapping () (false)#define kvm_readonly_mem_enabled () (false) +#define kvm_direct_msi_enabled () (false)#endif struct kvm_run ;
kvm-all.c +5 -5
@@ -93,7 +93,6 @@ struct KVMStateuint32_t *used_gsi_bitmap;unsigned int gsi_count; QTAILQ_HEAD(msi_hashtab, KVMMSIRoute) msi_hashtab[KVM_MSI_HASHTAB_SIZE]; -bool direct_msi;#endif KVMMemoryListener memory_listener; };
@@ -111,6 +110,7 @@ bool kvm_gsi_direct_mapping;bool kvm_allowed;bool kvm_readonly_mem_allowed;bool kvm_vm_attributes_allowed; +bool kvm_direct_msi_allowed;static const KVMCapabilityInfo kvm_required_capabilites[] = {KVM_CAP_INFO (USER_MEMORY ),
@@ -979,7 +979,7 @@ void kvm_init_irq_routing(KVMState *s) s->irq_routes =g_malloc0 (sizeof (*s->irq_routes)); s->nr_allocated_irq_routes =0 ; -if (!s->direct_msi) { +if (!kvm_direct_msi_allowed) {for (i =0 ; i <KVM_MSI_HASHTAB_SIZE ; i++) {QTAILQ_INIT (&s->msi_hashtab[i]); }
@@ -1113,7 +1113,7 @@ static int kvm_irqchip_get_virq(KVMState *s)* number can succeed even though a new route entry cannot be added. * When this happens, flush dynamic MSI entries to free IRQ route entries. */ -if (!s->direct_msi && s->irq_routes->nr == s->gsi_count) { +if (!kvm_direct_msi_allowed && s->irq_routes->nr == s->gsi_count) {kvm_flush_dynamic_msi_routes (s); }
@@ -1150,7 +1150,7 @@ int kvm_irqchip_send_msi(KVMState *s, MSIMessage msg)struct kvm_msi msi;KVMMSIRoute *route; -if (s->direct_msi) { +if (kvm_direct_msi_allowed) { msi.address_lo = (uint32_t )msg.address; msi.address_hi = msg.address >>32 ; msi.data =le32_to_cpu (msg.data);
@@ -1598,7 +1598,7 @@ static int kvm_init(MachineState *ms)#endif #ifdef KVM_CAP_IRQ_ROUTING - s->direct_msi = (kvm_check_extension (s,KVM_CAP_SIGNAL_MSI ) >0 ); + kvm_direct_msi_allowed = (kvm_check_extension (s,KVM_CAP_SIGNAL_MSI ) >0 );#endif s->intx_set_mask =kvm_check_extension (s,KVM_CAP_PCI_2_3 );
Signature · 1 line
2.4.4
PATCH 2/3 hw/pci: Introduce msi_device_id()
In reply to Pavel FedinWe will need to get device IDs in KVM IRQ routing code too. This patch introduces reusable convenient way to obtain it from the device pointer.
--- hw/pci/msi.c | 2 +- include/hw/pci/msi.h | 5 +++++ 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
hw/pci/msi.c +1 -1
@@ -294,7 +294,7 @@ void msi_send_message(PCIDevice *dev, MSIMessage msg) {MemTxAttrs attrs = {}; - attrs.stream_id = (pci_bus_num (dev->bus) <<8 ) | dev->devfn; + attrs.stream_id =msi_device_id (dev);address_space_stl_le (&dev->bus_master_as, msg.address, msg.data, attrs,NULL ); }
include/hw/pci/msi.h +5 -0
@@ -43,6 +43,11 @@ void msi_send_message(PCIDevice *dev, MSIMessage msg);void msi_write_config (PCIDevice *dev,uint32_t addr,uint32_t val,int len);unsigned int msi_nr_vectors_allocated (const PCIDevice *dev); +static inline uint16_t msi_device_id (PCIDevice *dev) +{ +return (pci_bus_num (dev->bus) <<8 ) | dev->devfn; +} +static inline bool msi_present (const PCIDevice *dev) {return dev->cap_present &QEMU_PCI_CAP_MSI ;
Signature · 1 line
2.4.4
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/3] hw/pci: Introduce msi_device_id()
Quoted 4 lines · Pavel Fedin
We will need to get device IDs in KVM IRQ routing code too. This patch introduces reusable convenient way to obtain it from the device pointer.
Signed-off-by Pavel Fedin <[email protected]>
What make this specific format an msi id?
I think this is some kvm specific hack.
If true it belongs there.
Quoted 36 lines
--- hw/pci/msi.c | 2 +- include/hw/pci/msi.h | 5 +++++ 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)hw/pci/msi.c +1
-1@@ -294,7 +294,7 @@ void msi_send_message(PCIDevice *dev, MSIMessage msg) {MemTxAttrs attrs = {}; - attrs.stream_id = (pci_bus_num (dev->bus) <<8 ) | dev->devfn; + attrs.stream_id =msi_device_id (dev);address_space_stl_le (&dev->bus_master_as, msg.address, msg.data, attrs,NULL ); }include/hw/pci/msi.h +5
-0@@ -43,6 +43,11 @@ void msi_send_message(PCIDevice *dev, MSIMessage msg);void msi_write_config (PCIDevice *dev,uint32_t addr,uint32_t val,int len);unsigned int msi_nr_vectors_allocated (const PCIDevice *dev); +static inline uint16_t msi_device_id (PCIDevice *dev) +{ +return (pci_bus_num (dev->bus) <<8 ) | dev->devfn; +} +static inline bool msi_present (const PCIDevice *dev) {return dev->cap_present &QEMU_PCI_CAP_MSI ;Signature · 1 line
2.4.4
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/3] hw/pci: Introduce msi_device_id()
Hello!
Quoted 2 lines
What make this specific format an msi id?
I think this is some kvm specific hack.
It is actually architecture-specific. But, we don't have any other arches using it (and probably won't), so at least for now i
decided to put it there in order to keep things simpler. If this ever pops up on any other arch, we'll be able to easily move it to target-XXX.
Kind regards,
Pavel Fedin
Expert Engineer
Samsung Electronics Research center Russia
PATCH 3/3 kvm: Pass PCI device pointer to MSI routing functions
In reply to Pavel FedinIn-kernel ITS emulation requires to supply device IDs. These IDs can be retrieved from the device pointer using msi_device_id() function.
--- hw/i386/kvm/pci-assign.c | 9 +++++---- hw/vfio/pci.c | 11 ++++++----- hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c | 5 +++-- include/sysemu/kvm.h | 5 +++-- kvm-all.c | 5 +++-- kvm-stub.c | 5 +++-- 6 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
hw/i386/kvm/pci-assign.c +5 -4
@@ -979,7 +979,7 @@ static void assigned_dev_update_msi(PCIDevice *pci_dev)MSIMessage msg =msi_get_message (pci_dev,0 );int virq; - virq =kvm_irqchip_add_msi_route (kvm_state, msg); + virq =kvm_irqchip_add_msi_route (kvm_state, msg, pci_dev);if (virq <0 ) {perror ("assigned_dev_update_msi: kvm_irqchip_add_msi_route" );return ;
@@ -1017,7 +1017,7 @@ static void assigned_dev_update_msi_msg(PCIDevice *pci_dev) }kvm_irqchip_update_msi_route (kvm_state, assigned_dev->msi_virq[0 ], -msi_get_message (pci_dev,0 )); +msi_get_message (pci_dev,0 ), pci_dev); }static bool assigned_dev_msix_masked (MSIXTableEntry *entry)
@@ -1083,7 +1083,7 @@ static int assigned_dev_update_msix_mmio(PCIDevice *pci_dev) msg.address = entry->addr_lo | ((uint64_t )entry->addr_hi <<32 ); msg.data = entry->data; - r =kvm_irqchip_add_msi_route (kvm_state, msg); + r =kvm_irqchip_add_msi_route (kvm_state, msg, pci_dev);if (r <0 ) {return r; }
@@ -1602,7 +1602,8 @@ static void assigned_dev_msix_mmio_write(void *opaque, hwaddr addr, msg.data = entry->data; ret =kvm_irqchip_update_msi_route (kvm_state, - adev->msi_virq[i], msg); + adev->msi_virq[i], msg, + pci_dev);if (ret) {error_report ("Error updating irq routing entry (%d)" , ret); }
hw/vfio/pci.c +6 -5
@@ -424,7 +424,7 @@ static void vfio_add_kvm_msi_virq(VFIOPCIDevice *vdev, VFIOMSIVector *vector,return ; } - virq =kvm_irqchip_add_msi_route (kvm_state, *msg); + virq =kvm_irqchip_add_msi_route (kvm_state, *msg, &vdev->pdev);if (virq <0 ) {event_notifier_cleanup (&vector->kvm_interrupt);return ;
@@ -449,9 +449,10 @@ static void vfio_remove_kvm_msi_virq(VFIOMSIVector *vector)event_notifier_cleanup (&vector->kvm_interrupt); } -static void vfio_update_kvm_msi_virq (VFIOMSIVector *vector,MSIMessage msg) +static void vfio_update_kvm_msi_virq (VFIOMSIVector *vector,MSIMessage msg, +PCIDevice *pdev) { -kvm_irqchip_update_msi_route (kvm_state, vector->virq, msg); +kvm_irqchip_update_msi_route (kvm_state, vector->virq, msg, pdev); } static int vfio_msix_vector_do_use(PCIDevice *pdev, unsigned int nr,
@@ -486,7 +487,7 @@ static int vfio_msix_vector_do_use(PCIDevice *pdev, unsigned int nr,if (!msg) {vfio_remove_kvm_msi_virq (vector); }else { -vfio_update_kvm_msi_virq (vector, *msg); +vfio_update_kvm_msi_virq (vector, *msg, pdev); } }else {vfio_add_kvm_msi_virq (vdev, vector, msg, true);
@@ -760,7 +761,7 @@ static void vfio_update_msi(VFIOPCIDevice *vdev) } msg =msi_get_message (&vdev->pdev, i); -vfio_update_kvm_msi_virq (vector, msg); +vfio_update_kvm_msi_virq (vector, msg, &vdev->pdev); } }
hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c +3 -2
@@ -590,7 +590,7 @@ static int kvm_virtio_pci_vq_vector_use(VirtIOPCIProxy *proxy,int ret;if (irqfd->users ==0 ) { - ret =kvm_irqchip_add_msi_route (kvm_state, msg); + ret =kvm_irqchip_add_msi_route (kvm_state, msg, &proxy->pci_dev);if (ret <0 ) {return ret; }
@@ -726,7 +726,8 @@ static int virtio_pci_vq_vector_unmask(VirtIOPCIProxy *proxy,if (proxy->vector_irqfd) { irqfd = &proxy->vector_irqfd[vector];if (irqfd->msg.data != msg.data || irqfd->msg.address != msg.address) { - ret =kvm_irqchip_update_msi_route (kvm_state, irqfd->virq, msg); + ret =kvm_irqchip_update_msi_route (kvm_state, irqfd->virq, msg, + &proxy->pci_dev);if (ret <0 ) {return ret; }
include/sysemu/kvm.h +3 -2
@@ -447,8 +447,9 @@ static inline void cpu_clean_state(CPUState *cpu) } } -int kvm_irqchip_add_msi_route (KVMState *s,MSIMessage msg); -int kvm_irqchip_update_msi_route (KVMState *s,int virq,MSIMessage msg); +int kvm_irqchip_add_msi_route (KVMState *s,MSIMessage msg,PCIDevice *dev); +int kvm_irqchip_update_msi_route (KVMState *s,int virq,MSIMessage msg, +PCIDevice *dev);void kvm_irqchip_release_virq (KVMState *s,int virq);int kvm_irqchip_add_adapter_route (KVMState *s,AdapterInfo *adapter);
kvm-all.c +3 -2
@@ -1189,7 +1189,7 @@ int kvm_irqchip_send_msi(KVMState *s, MSIMessage msg)return kvm_set_irq (s, route->kroute.gsi,1 ); } -int kvm_irqchip_add_msi_route (KVMState *s,MSIMessage msg) +int kvm_irqchip_add_msi_route (KVMState *s,MSIMessage msg,PCIDevice *dev) {struct kvm_irq_routing_entry kroute = {};int virq;
@@ -1224,7 +1224,8 @@ int kvm_irqchip_add_msi_route(KVMState *s, MSIMessage msg)return virq; } -int kvm_irqchip_update_msi_route (KVMState *s,int virq,MSIMessage msg) +int kvm_irqchip_update_msi_route (KVMState *s,int virq,MSIMessage msg, +PCIDevice *dev) {struct kvm_irq_routing_entry kroute = {};
kvm-stub.c +3 -2
@@ -115,7 +115,7 @@ int kvm_on_sigbus(int code, void *addr) }#ifndef CONFIG_USER_ONLY -int kvm_irqchip_add_msi_route (KVMState *s,MSIMessage msg) +int kvm_irqchip_add_msi_route (KVMState *s,MSIMessage msg,PCIDevice *dev) {return -ENOSYS ; }
@@ -128,7 +128,8 @@ void kvm_irqchip_release_virq(KVMState *s, int virq) { } -int kvm_irqchip_update_msi_route (KVMState *s,int virq,MSIMessage msg) +int kvm_irqchip_update_msi_route (KVMState *s,int virq,MSIMessage msg, +PCIDevice *dev) {return -ENOSYS ; }
Signature · 1 line
2.4.4
Quoted 5 lines · Pavel Fedin
This small series is actually an extraction from vITS support RFC
(https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-09/msg07074.html).
Nobody reviewed it so far, however some bits of it could actually be applied early. This series consists only of those parts, which do not depend on any new unreleased kernel APIs.
I'm not at all sure we want to keep extending pci-assign with more functionality. Why not add it to vfio instead?
Quoted 18 lines
Pavel Fedin (3):
kvm: MakeKVM_CAP_SIGNAL_MSIglobally available hw/pci: Introducemsi_device_id()
kvm: Pass PCI device pointer to MSI routing functionshw/i386/kvm/pci-assign.c | 9 +++++---- hw/pci/msi.c | 2 +- hw/vfio/pci.c | 11 ++++++----- hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c | 5 +++-- include/hw/pci/msi.h | 5 +++++ include/sysemu/kvm.h | 14 ++++++++++++-- kvm-all.c | 15 ++++++++------- kvm-stub.c | 5 +++-- 8 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)Signature · 1 line
2.4.4
Hello!
Quoted 2 lines
I'm not at all sure we want to keep extending pci-assign with more functionality. Why not add it to vfio instead?
pci-assign? What exactly do you mean?
hw/i386/kvm/pci-assign.c is modified only because kvm_irqchip_add_msi_route() now wants pci_dev pointer. Since x86 platform doesn't
use device IDs, it could very well be NULL. Just i decided to keep it consistent with the rest of the code.
Actually, patch 0003 is all about that - we add pci_dev pointer to KVM GSI routing functions and make callers passing it, that's
all. Currently it's not used because KVM API is not released yet. See my full vITS patchset for information on how it will be used. And yes, the patchset is a bit obsolete, so it doesn't have msi_device_id() inline, there's copypasted calculation instead.
What exactly do you suggest to move to vfio?
Kind regards,
Pavel Fedin
Expert Engineer
Samsung Electronics Research center Russia
Quoted 11 lines · Pavel Fedin
Hello!
Quoted 2 lines
I'm not at all sure we want to keep extending pci-assign with more functionality. Why not add it to vfio instead?
pci-assign? What exactly do you mean?
hw/i386/kvm/pci-assign.cis modified only becausekvm_irqchip_add_msi_route()now wantspci_devpointer. Since x86 platform doesn't
use device IDs, it could very well be NULL. Just i decided to keep it consistent with the rest of the code.
Actually, patch 0003 is all about that - we addpci_devpointer to KVM GSI routing functions and make callers passing it, that's
all.
I see, I didn't get that. Pls make this explicit in the commit log.
Quoted 3 lines
Currently it's not used because KVM API is not released yet. See my full vITS patchset for information on how it will be used. And yes, the patchset is a bit obsolete, so it doesn't have
msi_device_id()inline, there's copypasted calculation instead.
What exactly do you suggest to move to vfio?
msi_device_id seems like something kvm specific.
Maybe not vfio, just out of pci.
Quoted 6 lines
Kind regards,
Pavel Fedin
Expert Engineer
Samsung Electronics Research center Russia
Hello!
Quoted 2 lines
msi_device_idseems like something kvm specific.
Maybe not vfio, just out of pci.
I've just replied the same to Paolo. msi_device_id is architecture-specific. Just there is no any other arch yet to use it except
ARM64, therefore it is in pci. If needed, it could be moved to target-XXX.
Kind regards,
Pavel Fedin
Expert Engineer
Samsung Electronics Research center Russia
Quoted 5 lines · Pavel Fedin
Hello!
Quoted 2 lines
msi_device_idseems like something kvm specific.
Maybe not vfio, just out of pci.
Quoted 7 lines
I've just replied the same to Paolo.
msi_device_idis architecture-specific. Just there is no any other arch yet to use it except
ARM64, therefore it is in pci. If needed, it could be moved to target-XXX.Kind regards,
Pavel Fedin
Expert Engineer
Samsung Electronics Research center Russia
Pls move it.