Re: [Xen-devel] (v2) Design proposal for RMRR fix

["Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>]

> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 5:00 PM
> 
> >>> On 14.01.15 at 09:06, <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Now the open is whether we want to fail domain creation for all of above
> > conflicts. user may choose to bear with conflicts at his own disposal, or
> > libxl doesn't want to fail conflicts as preparation for future
> > hotplug/migration.
> > One possible option is to add a per-region flag to specify whether treating
> > relevant conflict as an error, when libxl composes the list to domain
> > builder.
> > and this information will be saved in a user space database accessible to
> > all components and also waterfall to Xen hypervisor when libxl requests
> > actual device assignment.
> 
> That's certainly a possibility, albeit saying (in the guest config) that
> a region to be reserved only when possible is about the same as
> not stating that region. If at all, I'd see the rmrr-host value be a
> tristate (don't, try, and force) to that effect.
> 

how about something like below with bi-state?

for statically assigned device:
        pci = [ "00:02.0, 0/1" ]
where '0/1' represents try/force (or use 'try/force', or have a meaningful 
attribute like rmrr_check=try/force?)

for other usages like hotplug/migration:
        reserved_regions = [ 'host, 0/1', 'start, end, 0/1', 'start, end, 0/1', 
...]
If 'host' is specified, it implies rmrr_host, besides user can specific 
explicit ranges according to his detail requirement.

based on above configuration interface, libxl can construct necessary
reserve regions with individual try/force policies.

Thanks
Kevin

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel