search for: microvm

...on adding ACPI support for > > virtio-iommu, which is the preferred boot method on x86. It will be a > > new vendor-agnostic table describing para-virtual topologies in a > > minimal format. However some platforms don't use either ACPI or DT for > > booting (for example microvm), and will need the alternative topology > > description method proposed here. In addition, since the process to get > > a new ACPI table will take a long time, this provides a boot method even > > to ACPI-based platforms, if only temporarily for testing and > > development....

...on adding ACPI support for > > virtio-iommu, which is the preferred boot method on x86. It will be a > > new vendor-agnostic table describing para-virtual topologies in a > > minimal format. However some platforms don't use either ACPI or DT for > > booting (for example microvm), and will need the alternative topology > > description method proposed here. In addition, since the process to get > > a new ACPI table will take a long time, this provides a boot method even > > to ACPI-based platforms, if only temporarily for testing and > > development....

...guests would need to > implement or modify their support for all of DMAR, IVRS and IORT. If > we end up doing VIOT, I suggest limiting it to IORT. > > (2) In addition, there are some concerns about having virtio depend on > ACPI or DT. Some hypervisors (Firecracker, QEMU microvm, kvmtool x86 > [1]) power? > don't currently implement those methods. > > It was suggested to embed the topology description into the device. > It can work, as demonstrated at the end of this RFC, with the > following limitations: > > - The topolo...

...ort for > > > virtio-iommu, which is the preferred boot method on x86. It will be a > > > new vendor-agnostic table describing para-virtual topologies in a > > > minimal format. However some platforms don't use either ACPI or DT for > > > booting (for example microvm), and will need the alternative topology > > > description method proposed here. In addition, since the process to get > > > a new ACPI table will take a long time, this provides a boot method even > > > to ACPI-based platforms, if only temporarily for testing and > &g...

...t; > virtio-iommu, which is the preferred boot method on x86. It will be a > > > > new vendor-agnostic table describing para-virtual topologies in a > > > > minimal format. However some platforms don't use either ACPI or DT for > > > > booting (for example microvm), and will need the alternative topology > > > > description method proposed here. In addition, since the process to get > > > > a new ACPI table will take a long time, this provides a boot method even > > > > to ACPI-based platforms, if only temporarily for test...

...ncrease fragmentation as guests would need to implement or modify their support for all of DMAR, IVRS and IORT. If we end up doing VIOT, I suggest limiting it to IORT. (2) In addition, there are some concerns about having virtio depend on ACPI or DT. Some hypervisors (Firecracker, QEMU microvm, kvmtool x86 [1]) don't currently implement those methods. It was suggested to embed the topology description into the device. It can work, as demonstrated at the end of this RFC, with the following limitations: - The topology description must be read before any endpoint m...

...ncrease fragmentation as guests would need to implement or modify their support for all of DMAR, IVRS and IORT. If we end up doing VIOT, I suggest limiting it to IORT. (2) In addition, there are some concerns about having virtio depend on ACPI or DT. Some hypervisors (Firecracker, QEMU microvm, kvmtool x86 [1]) don't currently implement those methods. It was suggested to embed the topology description into the device. It can work, as demonstrated at the end of this RFC, with the following limitations: - The topology description must be read before any endpoint m...

...ndles PCI-based endpoints and viommu. On ACPI platforms, where the virtio-mmio device is specified by an object with _HID LNRO0005, supporting virtio-iommu on MMIO requires installing a bus notifier. There I'd rather use an ACPI table for the topology. Platforms that don't have ACPI such as microvm specify virtio-mmio devices on the command-line. There devices are only created when the virtio-mmio module is loaded, which is too late. In that case I think we need to add an early pass on the command-line, instead of a bus notifier. Thanks, Jean

...e made some progress on adding ACPI support for > virtio-iommu, which is the preferred boot method on x86. It will be a > new vendor-agnostic table describing para-virtual topologies in a > minimal format. However some platforms don't use either ACPI or DT for > booting (for example microvm), and will need the alternative topology > description method proposed here. In addition, since the process to get > a new ACPI table will take a long time, this provides a boot method even > to ACPI-based platforms, if only temporarily for testing and > development. > > v3: >...

...e made some progress on adding ACPI support for > virtio-iommu, which is the preferred boot method on x86. It will be a > new vendor-agnostic table describing para-virtual topologies in a > minimal format. However some platforms don't use either ACPI or DT for > booting (for example microvm), and will need the alternative topology > description method proposed here. In addition, since the process to get > a new ACPI table will take a long time, this provides a boot method even > to ACPI-based platforms, if only temporarily for testing and > development. OK should I park t...

...e made some progress on adding ACPI support for > virtio-iommu, which is the preferred boot method on x86. It will be a > new vendor-agnostic table describing para-virtual topologies in a > minimal format. However some platforms don't use either ACPI or DT for > booting (for example microvm), and will need the alternative topology > description method proposed here. In addition, since the process to get > a new ACPI table will take a long time, this provides a boot method even > to ACPI-based platforms, if only temporarily for testing and > development. > > v3: >...

.... Since [v2] we have made some progress on adding ACPI support for virtio-iommu, which is the preferred boot method on x86. It will be a new vendor-agnostic table describing para-virtual topologies in a minimal format. However some platforms don't use either ACPI or DT for booting (for example microvm), and will need the alternative topology description method proposed here. In addition, since the process to get a new ACPI table will take a long time, this provides a boot method even to ACPI-based platforms, if only temporarily for testing and development. v3: * Add patch 1 that moves virtio-io...

.... Since [v2] we have made some progress on adding ACPI support for virtio-iommu, which is the preferred boot method on x86. It will be a new vendor-agnostic table describing para-virtual topologies in a minimal format. However some platforms don't use either ACPI or DT for booting (for example microvm), and will need the alternative topology description method proposed here. In addition, since the process to get a new ACPI table will take a long time, this provides a boot method even to ACPI-based platforms, if only temporarily for testing and development. v3: * Add patch 1 that moves virtio-io...

...on adding ACPI support for > > virtio-iommu, which is the preferred boot method on x86. It will be a > > new vendor-agnostic table describing para-virtual topologies in a > > minimal format. However some platforms don't use either ACPI or DT for > > booting (for example microvm), and will need the alternative topology > > description method proposed here. In addition, since the process to get > > a new ACPI table will take a long time, this provides a boot method even > > to ACPI-based platforms, if only temporarily for testing and > > development....

...on adding ACPI support for > > virtio-iommu, which is the preferred boot method on x86. It will be a > > new vendor-agnostic table describing para-virtual topologies in a > > minimal format. However some platforms don't use either ACPI or DT for > > booting (for example microvm), and will need the alternative topology > > description method proposed here. In addition, since the process to get > > a new ACPI table will take a long time, this provides a boot method even > > to ACPI-based platforms, if only temporarily for testing and > > development....

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 11:21:29AM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 05:00:35AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > OK so this looks good. Can you pls repost with the minor tweak > > suggested and all acks included, and I will queue this? > > My NACK still stands, as long as a few questions are open: > > 1) The format used here will be the same as

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 11:21:29AM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 05:00:35AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > OK so this looks good. Can you pls repost with the minor tweak > > suggested and all acks included, and I will queue this? > > My NACK still stands, as long as a few questions are open: > > 1) The format used here will be the same as

> From: Jean-Philippe Brucker > Sent: Saturday, February 29, 2020 1:26 AM > > Platforms without device-tree do not currently have a method for > describing the vIOMMU topology. Provide a topology description embedded > into the virtio device. > > Use PCI FIXUP to probe the config space early, because we need to > discover the topology before any DMA configuration takes

> From: Jean-Philippe Brucker > Sent: Saturday, February 29, 2020 1:26 AM > > Platforms without device-tree do not currently have a method for > describing the vIOMMU topology. Provide a topology description embedded > into the virtio device. > > Use PCI FIXUP to probe the config space early, because we need to > discover the topology before any DMA configuration takes