Subject: Re: [RFC v2 0/6] IRQ bypass manager and irqfd consumer
To: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>
References: <1436184692-20927-1-git-send-email-eric.auger@linaro.org>
 <1436289468.1391.89.camel@redhat.com> <20150709122805.GW18569@8bytes.org>
 <1436451223.1391.219.camel@redhat.com>
Cc: Eric Auger <eric.auger@linaro.org>, eric.auger@st.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, christoffer.dall@linaro.org, marc.zyngier@arm.com,
        avi.kivity@gmail.com, mtosatti@redhat.com, feng.wu@intel.com,
        b.reynal@virtualopensystems.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        patches@linaro.org
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <559E8771.9010401@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 16:38:41 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1436451223.1391.219.camel@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2122
Lines: 42


On 09/07/2015 16:13, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-07-09 at 14:28 +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 11:17:48AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
>>> Hosting the bypass manager in kernel/irq seemed appropriate, but really
>>> it could be anywhere.  Does anyone have a different preference or
>>> specifically want it under their scope?  We had originally thought of
>>> this as an IOMMU service, but I think we've generalized it beyond that.
>>> I expect we should also add the necessary hooks to turn it into a
>>> loadable module to keep the tinification folks happy, I'll incorporate
>>> the current working changes and post a version with that.
>>
>> Yeah, this is only an IOMMU service on x86, afaik. So drivers/iommu is
>> probably the wrong place to host it.
>>
>> Will there be any other producers than VFIO or any other consumers than
>> KVM? If not, it should live in one of these spaces. KVM is probably the
>> best choice, as any hardware feature that uses this targets
>> virtualization, so there will hardly ever be another consumer than KVM.
> 
> If we think that it's *only* a kvm-vfio interaction then we could add it
> to virt/kvm/vfio.c.  vfio could use symbol_get to avoid a module
> dependency and effectively disable the code path when not used with kvm.
> The reverse model of hosting it in vfio and using symbol_get from
> kvm-vfio would also work.  Do we really want to declare it to be
> kvm-vfio specific though?  Another option would be to simply host it
> under virt/lib with module dependencies for both vfio and kvm.

I wonder if in the future we may have some kind of driver-mediated
passthrough, e.g. for network drivers.  They might use the bypass
mechanism too.  So I think drivers/vfio is too restrictive.

virt/ right now only hosts KVM, but it could for example host lguest
too.  virt/lib/ is okay with me.

Paolo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/