lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Dec]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 1/1] platform-msi: Add platform check for subdevice irq domain
From
Date
Hi Bjorn,

On 12/11/20 2:57 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 08:46:24AM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
>> The pci_subdevice_msi_create_irq_domain() should fail if the underlying
>> platform is not able to support IMS (Interrupt Message Storage). Otherwise,
>> the isolation of interrupt is not guaranteed.
>>
>> For x86, IMS is only supported on bare metal for now. We could enable it
>> in the virtualization environments in the future if interrupt HYPERCALL
>> domain is supported or the hardware has the capability of interrupt
>> isolation for subdevices.
>
>> + * We want to figure out which context we are running in. But the hardware
>> + * does not introduce a reliable way (instruction, CPUID leaf, MSR, whatever)
>> + * which can be manipulated by the VMM to let the OS figure out where it runs.
>> + * So we go with the below probably_on_bare_metal() function as a replacement
>> + * for definitely_on_bare_metal() to go forward only for the very simple reason
>> + * that this is the only option we have.
>> + */
>> +static const char * const possible_vmm_vendor_name[] = {
>> + "QEMU", "Bochs", "KVM", "Xen", "VMware", "VMW", "VMware Inc.",
>> + "innotek GmbH", "Oracle Corporation", "Parallels", "BHYVE",
>> + "Microsoft Corporation"
>> +};
>> +
>> +static bool probably_on_bare_metal(void)
>
> What is the point of a function called probably_on_bare_metal()?
> *Probably*? The caller can't really do anything with the fact that
> we're not 100% sure this gives the correct answer. Just call it
> "on_bare_metal()" or something and accept the fact that it might be
> wrong sometimes.

Agreed. we can use on_bare_metal() and add comments and kernel messages
to let users and developers know that we're not 100% sure. People should
help to make it more accurate by reporting exceptions.

>
> This patch goes with IMS support, which somebody else is handling, so
> I assume you don't need anything from the PCI side.

Yes. This is a followup of previous discussion.

Best regards,
baolu

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-12-16 02:59    [W:0.070 / U:0.888 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site