Re: [Qemu-devel] RFC [v2]: vfio / device assignment -- layout of device fd files

[Scott Wood]

On 09/26/2011 01:34 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> The other obvious possibility is a pure ioctl interface.  To match what
> this proposal is trying to describe, plus the runtime interfaces, we'd
> need something like:
> 
> /* :0 - PCI devices, :1 - Devices path device, 63:2 - reserved */
> #define VFIO_DEVICE_GET_FLAGS                 _IOR(, , u64)
> 
> 
> /* Return number of mmio/iop/config regions.
>  * For PCI this is always 8 (BAR0-5 + ROM + Config) */
> #define VFIO_DEVICE_GET_NUM_REGIONS           _IOR(, , int)

How do you handle BARs that a particular device doesn't use?  Zero-length?

> /* Return the device tree path for type/index into the user
>  * allocated buffer */
> struct dtpath {
>       u32     type; (0 = region, 1 = IRQ)
>       u32     index;
>       u32     buf_len;
>       char    *buf;
> };
> #define VFIO_DEVICE_GET_DTPATH                        _IOWR(, , struct dtpath)

So now the user needs to guess a buffer length in advance... and what
happens if it's too small?

> /* Reset the device */
> #define VFIO_DEVICE_RESET                     _IO(, ,)

What generic way do we have to do this?  We should probably have a way
to determine whether it's possible, without actually asking to do it.

> /* PCI MSI setup, arg[0] = #, arg[1-n] = eventfds */
> #define VFIO_DEVICE_PCI_SET_MSI_EVENTFDS      _IOW(, , int)
> #define VFIO_DEVICE_PCI_SET_MSIX_EVENTFDS     _IOW(, , int)
> 
> Hope that covers it.

It could be done this way, but I predict that the code (both kernel and
user side) will be larger.  Maybe not much more complex, but more
boilerplate.

How will you manage extensions to the interface?  With the table it's
simple, you see a new (sub)record type and you either understand it or
you skip it.  With ioctls you need to call every information-gathering
ioctl you know and care about (or are told is present via some feature
advertisement), and see if there's anything there.

> Something I prefer about this interface is that
> everything can easily be generated on the fly, whereas reading out a
> table from the device means we really need to have that table somewhere
> in kernel memory to easily support reading random offsets.  Thoughts?

The table should not be particularly large, and you'll need to keep the
information around in some form regardless.  Maybe in the PCI case you
could produce it dynamically (though I probably wouldn't), but it really
wouldn't make sense in the device tree case.

You also lose the ability to easily have a human look at the hexdump for
debugging; you'll need a special "lsvfio" tool.  You might want one
anyway to pretty-print the info, but with ioctls it's mandatory.

-Scott