Re: [PATCH v8] xen/pt: reserve PCI slot 2 for Intel igd-passthru

[Igor Mammedov]

On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 09:43:52 -0500
Chuck Zmudzinski <brchuckz@aol.com> wrote:

> On 1/17/2023 5:35 AM, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 13:00:53 -0500
> > Chuck Zmudzinski <brchuckz@netscape.net> wrote:
> >  
> > > On 1/16/23 10:33, Igor Mammedov wrote:  
> > > > On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 16:31:26 -0500
> > > > Chuck Zmudzinski <brchuckz@aol.com> wrote:
> > > >     
> > > >> On 1/13/23 4:33 AM, Igor Mammedov wrote:    
> > > >> > On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 23:14:26 -0500
> > > >> > Chuck Zmudzinski <brchuckz@aol.com> wrote:
> > > >> >       
> > > >> >> On 1/12/23 6:03 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:      
> > > >> >> > On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 10:55:25PM +0000, Bernhard Beschow wrote: 
> > > >> >> >        
> > > >> >> >> I think the change Michael suggests is very minimalistic: Move 
> > > >> >> >> the if
> > > >> >> >> condition around xen_igd_reserve_slot() into the function itself 
> > > >> >> >> and
> > > >> >> >> always call it there unconditionally -- basically turning three 
> > > >> >> >> lines
> > > >> >> >> into one. Since xen_igd_reserve_slot() seems very problem 
> > > >> >> >> specific,
> > > >> >> >> Michael further suggests to rename it to something more general. 
> > > >> >> >> All
> > > >> >> >> in all no big changes required.        
> > > >> >> > 
> > > >> >> > yes, exactly.
> > > >> >> >         
> > > >> >> 
> > > >> >> OK, got it. I can do that along with the other suggestions.      
> > > >> > 
> > > >> > have you considered instead of reservation, putting a slot check in 
> > > >> > device model
> > > >> > and if it's intel igd being passed through, fail at realize time  if 
> > > >> > it can't take
> > > >> > required slot (with a error directing user to fix command line)?     
> > > >> >  
> > > >> 
> > > >> Yes, but the core pci code currently already fails at realize time
> > > >> with a useful error message if the user tries to use slot 2 for the
> > > >> igd, because of the xen platform device which has slot 2. The user
> > > >> can fix this without patching qemu, but having the user fix it on
> > > >> the command line is not the best way to solve the problem, primarily
> > > >> because the user would need to hotplug the xen platform device via a
> > > >> command line option instead of having the xen platform device added by
> > > >> pc_xen_hvm_init functions almost immediately after creating the pci
> > > >> bus, and that delay in adding the xen platform device degrades
> > > >> startup performance of the guest.
> > > >>     
> > > >> > That could be less complicated than dealing with slot reservations 
> > > >> > at the cost of
> > > >> > being less convenient.      
> > > >> 
> > > >> And also a cost of reduced startup performance    
> > > > 
> > > > Could you clarify how it affects performance (and how much).
> > > > (as I see, setup done at board_init time is roughly the same
> > > > as with '-device foo' CLI options, modulo time needed to parse
> > > > options which should be negligible. and both ways are done before
> > > > guest runs)    
> > > 
> > > I preface my answer by saying there is a v9, but you don't
> > > need to look at that. I will answer all your questions here.
> > > 
> > > I am going by what I observe on the main HDMI display with the
> > > different approaches. With the approach of not patching Qemu
> > > to fix this, which requires adding the Xen platform device a
> > > little later, the length of time it takes to fully load the
> > > guest is increased. I also noticed with Linux guests that use
> > > the grub bootoader, the grub vga driver cannot display the
> > > grub boot menu at the native resolution of the display, which
> > > in the tested case is 1920x1080, when the Xen platform device
> > > is added via a command line option instead of by the
> > > pc_xen_hvm_init_pci fucntion in pc_piix.c, but with this patch
> > > to Qemu, the grub menu is displayed at the full, 1920x1080
> > > native resolution of the display. Once the guest fully loads,
> > > there is no noticeable difference in performance. It is mainly
> > > a degradation in startup performance, not performance once
> > > the guest OS is fully loaded.  
> > above hints on presence of bug[s] in igd-passthru implementation,
> > and this patch effectively hides problem instead of trying to figure
> > out what's wrong and fixing it.
> >  
> 
> Why did you delete the rest of my answers to your other observations and
> not respond to them?

they are preserved on mail-list in you previous email.
It's usually fine to trim non relevant parts and keep only part/context
that is being replied to.

I didn't want to argue point that it's usually job of management
arrange correct IGD passthrough for QEMU like Alex pointed out.
Hence those part got trimmed.


>