WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] one question on the PCI ioport base address forhvm domai

To: "Jiang, Yunhong" <yunhong.jiang@xxxxxxxxx>, <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Xu, Anthony" <anthony.xu@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] one question on the PCI ioport base address forhvm domain in hvmloader.c
From: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:34:38 +0000
Delivery-date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 09:35:03 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <391BF3CDD2DC0848B40ACB72FA97AD5902B8B95C@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AchRIyN5yzpWwbISTzG5mnNZ0UT+SwACf/2NAAXPO1AAA8zOtg==
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] one question on the PCI ioport base address forhvm domain in hvmloader.c
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.6.070618
I don't think direct mapping is important. Today every i/o port access in a
PV driver domain traps to the hypervisor, and we don't see a significant
overhead for doing this with any non-ancient hardware, because i/o ports are
not used on data paths much these days. Of course a VMEXIT is rather more
expensive than a #GP, but still I think this is an optimisation that can
wait. At the moment most people are unable to make Xen + VT-d work with
their devices at all, let alone with 99.999% of fully native performance.
;-)

 -- Keir

On 7/1/08 15:52, "Jiang, Yunhong" <yunhong.jiang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Yes, the guest OS should be allowed to remap BAR.
> But I don't know are there any OS will try to remap BAR, except Vista.
> And even in Vista, we can still try to disable BAR remapping through
> bcdedit.
> The benifit to set guest IO port address same as physical one is, if
> guest didn't try to remap, then it can access IO port directly without
> cause VMExit. That may help performance. Although IO port is not so
> important for PCI device now, but that may still be helpful on some
> situation, considering USB 1.1 device.
> Of course,we need still support the BAR remapping, what we can do is,
> our guest BIOS (hvmloader in fact) will set the initial value same to
> physical one.
> 
> 
> -- Yunhong Jiang
> 
> xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <> wrote:
>> Why not keep the level of indirection? After all, the guest OS should
> be
>> allowed to remap any BAR and we should support that.
>> 
>> -- Keir
>> 
>> On 7/1/08 11:47, "Jiang, Yunhong" <yunhong.jiang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>>> I'm considering to make guest IO port address same as physical one
> for
>>> passthrough hvm domain. However,  in hvmloader.c's pci_setup(), the
>>> io_base is hardcoded as 0xc000, are there any special reason for this
>>> value? (I checked and seems it comes from original qemu's code)
>>> 
>>> Can anyone give me some hints on it?
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> -- Yunhong Jiang
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Xen-devel mailing list
>>> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xen-devel mailing list
>> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>