Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-45290-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 14:44:03 -0600
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To: Roger Pau =?utf-8?B?TW9ubsOp?= <roger.pau@citrix.com>
Cc: "Chen, Jiqian" <Jiqian.Chen@amd.com>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
	Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>,
	Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr_tyshchenko@epam.com>,
	Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	"xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>,
	"linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Hildebrand, Stewart" <Stewart.Hildebrand@amd.com>,
	"Huang, Ray" <Ray.Huang@amd.com>,
	"Ragiadakou, Xenia" <Xenia.Ragiadakou@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC KERNEL PATCH v4 3/3] PCI/sysfs: Add gsi sysfs for pci_dev
Message-ID: <20240130204403.GA562912@bhelgaas>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <Zbi8WJPEUSMgjuVY@macbook>

On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 10:07:36AM +0100, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 04:01:13PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 07:17:24AM +0000, Chen, Jiqian wrote:
> > > On 2024/1/24 00:02, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 10:13:52AM +0000, Chen, Jiqian wrote:
> > > >> On 2024/1/23 07:37, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > >>> On Fri, Jan 05, 2024 at 02:22:17PM +0800, Jiqian Chen wrote:
> > > >>>> There is a need for some scenarios to use gsi sysfs.
> > > >>>> For example, when xen passthrough a device to dumU, it will
> > > >>>> use gsi to map pirq, but currently userspace can't get gsi
> > > >>>> number.
> > > >>>> So, add gsi sysfs for that and for other potential scenarios.
> > > >> ...
> > > > 
> > > >>> I don't know enough about Xen to know why it needs the GSI in
> > > >>> userspace.  Is this passthrough brand new functionality that can't be
> > > >>> done today because we don't expose the GSI yet?
> > 
> > I assume this must be new functionality, i.e., this kind of
> > passthrough does not work today, right?
> > 
> > > >> has ACPI support and is responsible for detecting and controlling
> > > >> the hardware, also it performs privileged operations such as the
> > > >> creation of normal (unprivileged) domains DomUs. When we give to a
> > > >> DomU direct access to a device, we need also to route the physical
> > > >> interrupts to the DomU. In order to do so Xen needs to setup and map
> > > >> the interrupts appropriately.
> > > > 
> > > > What kernel interfaces are used for this setup and mapping?
> > >
> > > For passthrough devices, the setup and mapping of routing physical
> > > interrupts to DomU are done on Xen hypervisor side, hypervisor only
> > > need userspace to provide the GSI info, see Xen code:
> > > xc_physdev_map_pirq require GSI and then will call hypercall to pass
> > > GSI into hypervisor and then hypervisor will do the mapping and
> > > routing, kernel doesn't do the setup and mapping.
> > 
> > So we have to expose the GSI to userspace not because userspace itself
> > uses it, but so userspace can turn around and pass it back into the
> > kernel?
> 
> No, the point is to pass it back to Xen, which doesn't know the
> mapping between GSIs and PCI devices because it can't execute the ACPI
> AML resource methods that provide such information.
> 
> The (Linux) kernel is just a proxy that forwards the hypercalls from
> user-space tools into Xen.

But I guess Xen knows how to interpret a GSI even though it doesn't
have access to AML?

> > It seems like it would be better for userspace to pass an identifier
> > of the PCI device itself back into the hypervisor.  Then the interface
> > could be generic and potentially work even on non-ACPI systems where
> > the GSI concept doesn't apply.
> 
> We would still need a way to pass the GSI to PCI device relation to
> the hypervisor, and then cache such data in the hypervisor.
> 
> I don't think we have any preference of where such information should
> be exposed, but given GSIs are an ACPI concept not specific to Xen
> they should be exposed by a non-Xen specific interface.

AFAIK Linux doesn't expose GSIs directly to userspace yet.  The GSI
concept relies on ACPI MADT, _MAT, _PRT, etc.  A GSI is associated
with some device (PCI in this case) and some interrupt controller
entry.  I don't understand how a GSI value is useful without knowing
something about that framework in which GSIs exist.

Obviously I know less than nothing about Xen, so I apologize for
asking all these stupid questions, but it just doesn't all make sense
to me yet.

Bjorn