Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 12/13] intel_iommu: ioapic: IR support for emulated IOAPIC

[Peter Xu]

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 08:39:21PM -0700, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2016-04-12 20:33, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 08:39:02AM -0700, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> On 2016-04-12 02:02, Peter Xu wrote:
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> >>> Yes, I should consider other x86 platforms like AMD. Thanks to point
> >>> out. It seems that there are many places in the patchset that lacks
> >>> thorough consideration about this. Will try to fix them in next
> >>> version.
> >>>
> >>> Regarding to the above MSI solution: I'd say it is a good way to
> >>> hide everything else behind.  However, since we introduced one extra
> >>> layer (MSI) which actually does not exist, not sure there would be
> >>> problem too.  Also, I feel it a little bit hacky if we "create" one
> >>> MSI out of the air...  For example, if someone tries to capture MSIs
> >>> from QEMU inside in the APIC memory writes, he will see something he
> >>> cannot explain if he never knows this hack's there.  Considering the
> >>> above, I would prefer hooks, or better to provide a callback (a
> >>> function pointer that others like AMD can override) to do the
> >>> translation.  How do you think?
> >>
> >> The HPET does send MSIs, and I'm not sure how much different the
> >> IOAPIC's message actually is. In any case, modelling it as MSI is
> >> neither adding incorrectness nor making the code more complex (in fact,
> >> the contrary is true!). Last but not least, it would be trivial to
> >> filter out non-PCI MSI sources if we wanted to trace only PCI - because
> >> we need to identify the origin anyway for remapping purposes. So,
> >> explicit hooking looks like the wrong way to me.
> > 
> > I am just not sure about the difference between IOAPIC's messages
> > and MSI ones. For now, they seems very alike. However, I am not sure
> > whether it would be not alike in the future. E.g., if one day, we
> > extend APIC bus to support more than 255 CPUs (could it? I do not
> > know for sure), here if we are with this "MSI layer", we would not
> > be able to do that, since MSI only support 8 bits for destination ID
> > field. That's my only worry now. If you (or Radim? or anyone more
> > experienced on this than me) can confirm that this would never be a
> > problem, I'd be glad to take the MSI way.
> 
> That's one of the reason why we need IR: >255 is only possible this way,
> because it requires x2APIC and that requires IR (see Intel spec). So,
> IOAPIC messages will then always travel via VT-d. No need to worry at all.

Ah, right. When we deliver the MSI, it's in remappable format, so
there is no destination ID at all... Okay, I can take this in
v3. Thanks.

-- peterx