path: root/service_solahart_jakarta_selatan__082122541663/pci_arbiter.mdwn

[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2012 Free Software Foundation, Inc."]]

[[!meta license="""[[!toggle id="license" text="GFDL 1.2+"]][[!toggleable
id="license" text="Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or
any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant
Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.  A copy of the license
is included in the section entitled [[GNU Free Documentation
License|/fdl]]."]]"""]]

[[!tag open_issue_hurd]]

For [[service_solahart_jakarta_selatan__082122541663/Dde]]/X.org/...


# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-02-19

    <youpi> antrik: we should probably add a gsoc idea on pci bus arbitration
    <youpi> DDE is still experimental for now so it's ok that you  have to
      configure it by hand, but it should be automatic at some ponit


## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-02-21

    <braunr> i'm not familiar with the new gnumach interface for userspace
      drivers, but can this pci enumerator be written with it as it is ?
    <braunr> (i'm not asking for a precise answer, just yes - even probably -
      or no)
    <braunr> (idk or utsl will do as well)
    <youpi> I'd say yes
    <youpi> since all drivers need is interrupts, io ports and iomem
    <youpi> the latter was already available through /dev/mem
    <youpi> io ports through the i386 rpcs
    <youpi> the changes provide both interrupts, and physical-contiguous
      allocation
    <youpi> it should be way enough
    <braunr> youpi: ok
    <braunr> youpi: thanks for the details :)
    <antrik> braunr: this was mentioned in the context of the interrupt
      forwarding interface... the original one implemented by zhengda isn't
      suitable for a PCI server; but the ones proposed by youpi and tschwinge
      would work
    <antrik> same for the physical memory interface: the current implementation
      doesn't allow delegation; but I already said that it's wrong


# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-07-15

    <bddebian> youpi: Oh, BTW, I keep meaning to ask you.  Could sound be done
      with dde or would there still need to be some kernel work?
    <youpi> bddebian: we'd need a PCI arbitrer for that
    <youpi> for now just one userland poking with PCI is fine
    <youpi> but two can produce bonks
    <bddebian> They can't use the same?
    <youpi> that's precisely the matter
    <youpi> they have to use the same
    <youpi> and not poke with it themselves
    <braunr> that's what an arbiter is for
    <bddebian> OK, so if we don't have a PCI arbiter now, how do things like
      netdde and video not collide currently?
    <bddebian> s/netdde/network/
    <bddebian> or disk for that matter
    <braunr> bddebian: ah currently, well currently, the network is the only
      thing using the pci bus
    <bddebian> How is that possible when I have a PCI video card and disk
      controller?
    <braunr> they are accessed through compatible means
    <bddebian> I suppose one of the hardest parts is prioritization?
    <braunr> i don't think it matters much, no
    <youpi> bddebian: netdde and Xorg don't collide essentially because they
      are not started at the same time (hopefully)
    <bddebian> braunr: What do you mean it doesn't matter?
    <braunr> bddebian: well the point is rather serializing access, we don't
      need more
    <braunr> do other systems actually schedule access to the pci bus ?
    <bddebian> From what I am reading, yes
    <braunr> ok


# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-07-16

    <antrik> youpi: the lack of a PCI arbiter is a problem, but I wounldn't
      consider it a precondition for adding another userspace driver
      class... it's up to the user to make sure he has only one class active,
      or take the risk of not doing so...
    <antrik> (plus, I suspect writing the arbiter is a smaller task than
      implementing another DDE class anyways...)
    <bddebian> Where would the arbiter need to reside, in gnumach?
    <antrik> bddebian: kernel would be one possible place (with the advantage
      of running both userspace and kernel drivers without the potential for
      conflicts)
    <antrik> but I think I would prefer a userspace server
    <youpi> antrik: we'd rather have PCI devices automatically set up
    <youpi> just like /dev/netdde is already set up for the user
    <youpi> so you can't count on the user
    <youpi> for the arbitrer, it could as well be userland, while still
      interacting with the kernel for some devices
    <youpi> we however "just" need to get disk drivers in userland to drop PCI
      drivers from kernel, actually


# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-07-17

    <bddebian> youpi: So this PCI arbiter should be a hurd server?
    <youpi> that'd be better
    <bddebian> youpi: Is there anything existing to look at as a basis?
    <youpi> no idea off-hand
    <bddebian> I mean you couldn't take what netdde does and generalize it?
    <youpi> netdde doesn't do any arbitration


# IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2012-07-19

    <bdefreese> youpi: Well at some point if you ever have time I'd like to
      understand better how you see the PCI architecture working in Hurd.
      I.E. would you expect the server to do enumeration and arbitration?
    <youpi> I'd expect both, yes, but that's probably to be discussed rather
      with antrik, he's the one who took some time to think about it
    <bdefreese> netdde uses libpciaccess currently, right?
    <youpi> yes
    <youpi> libpciaccess would have to be fixed into using the arbitrer
    <youpi> (that'd fix xorg as well)
    <bdefreese> Man, I am still a bit unclear on how this all interacting
      currently.. :(
    <youpi> currently it's not
    <youpi> and it's just by luck that it doesn't break
    <bdefreese> Long term xxxdde would use the new server, correct?
    <youpi> (well, we are also sure that the gnumach enumeration comes always
      before the netdde enumeration, and xorg is currently not started
      automatically, so its enumeration is also always after that)
    <youpi> yes
    <youpi> the server would essentially provide an interface equivalent to
      libpciaccess
    <bdefreese> Right
    <bdefreese> In general, where does the pci map get "stored"?  In GNU/Linux,
      is it all /proc based?
    <youpi> what do you mean by "pci map" ?
    <bdefreese> Once I have enumerated all of the buses and devices, does it
      stay stored or is it just redone for every call to a pci device?
    <youpi> in linux it's stored in the kernel
    <youpi> the abritrator would store it itself


# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-07-20

    <bddebian> antrik: BTW, youpi says you are the one to talk to for design of
      a PCI server :)
    <antrik> oh, am I?
    * antrik feels honoured :-)
    <antrik> I guess it's true though: I *did* spent a little thought on
      it... even mentioned something in my thesis IIRC
    <antrik> there is one tricky aspect to it though, which I'm not sure how to
      handle best: we need two different instances of libpciaccess
    <bddebian> Why two instances of libpciaccess?
    <antrik> one used by the PCI server to access the hardware directly (using
      the existing port poking backend), and one using a new backend to access
      our PCI server...
    <braunr> bddebian: hum, both i guess ?
    <bddebian> antrik: Why wouldn't the server access the hardware directly?  I
      thought libpciaccess was supposed to be generic on purpose?
    <antrik> hm... guess I wasn't clear
    <antrik> the point is that the PCI server should use the direct hardware
      access backend of libpciaccess
    <antrik> however, *clients* should use the PCI server backend of
      libpciaccess
    <antrik> I'm not sure backends can be selected at runtime...
    <antrik> which might mean that we actually have to compile two different
      versions of the library. erk.
    <bddebian> So you are saying the pci server should itself use libpci access
      rather than having it's own?
    <antrik> admittedly, that's not the most fundamental design decision to
      make ;-)
    <antrik> bddebian: yes. no need to rewrite (or copy) this code...
    <bddebian> Hmm
    <antrik> actually that was the plan all along when I first suggested
      implementing the register poking backend for libpciaccess
    <bddebian> Hmm, not sure I like it but I am certainly in no position to
      question it right now :)
    <braunr> why don't you like it ?
    <bddebian> I shouldn't need an Xorg specific library to access PCI on my OS
      :)
    <braunr> oh
    <bddebian> Though I don't disagree that reinventing the wheel is a bit
      tedious. :)
    <antrik> bddebian: although it originates from X.Org, I don't think there
      is anything about the library technically making it X-specific...
    <braunr> yes that's my opinion too
    <antrik> (well, there are some X-specific functions IIRC, but these do not
      hurt the other functionality)
    <bddebian> But what is there is api/abi breakage? :)
    <bddebian> s/is/if/
    <antrik> BTW according to rdepends there appear to be a number of non-X
      things using the library now
    <pinotree> like, uhm, hurd
    <antrik> yeah, that too... we are already using it for DDE
    <pinotree> if you have deb-src lines in your sources.list, use the
      grep-dctrl power:
    <pinotree> grep-dctrl -sPackage -FBuild-Depends libpciaccess-dev
      /var/lib/apt/lists/*_source_Sources | sort -u
    <bddebian> I know we are using it for netdde.
    <antrik> nice thing about it is that once we have the PCI server and an
      appropriate backend for libpciaccess, the same netdde and X binaries
      should work either with or without the PCI server
    <bddebian> Then why have the server at all?
    <braunr> it's the arbiter
    <braunr> you can use the library directly only if you're the only user
    <braunr> and what antrik means is that the interface should be the same for
      both modes
    <bddebian> Ugh, that is where I am getting confused
    <bddebian> In that case shouldn't everything use libpciaccess and the PCI
      server has to arbitrate the requests?
    <braunr> bd	?
    <braunr> bddebian: yes
    <braunr> bddebian: but they use the indirect version of the library
    <braunr> whereas the server uses the raw version
    <bddebian> OK, I gotcha (I think)
    <braunr> (but they both provide the same interface, so if you don't have a
      pci server and you know you're the only user, the direct version can be
      used)
    <bddebian> But I am not sure I see the difference between creating a second
      library or just moving the raw access to the PCI server :)
    <braunr> uh, there is no difference in that
    <braunr> and you shouldn't do it
    <braunr> (if that's what antrik meant at least)
    <braunr> if you can select the backend (raw or pci server) easily, then
      stick to the same code base
    <bddebian> That's where I struggle.  In my worthless opinion, raw access
      should be the OS job while indirect access would be the libraries
      responsibility
    <braunr> that's true
    <braunr> but as an optimization, if an application is the only user, it can
      directly use raw access
    <bddebian> How would you know that?
    <bddebian> I'm sorry if these are dumb questions
    <braunr> hum, don't try to make this behaviour automatic
    <braunr> it would be selected by the user through command line switches
    <bddebian> But the OS itself uses PCI for things like disk access and
      video, no?
    <braunr> (it could be automatic but it makes things more complicated)
    <braunr> you don't need an arbiter all the time
    <braunr> i can't tell you more, wait for antrik to return
    <braunr> i realize i might already have said some bullshit
    <antrik> bddebian: well, you have a point there that once we have the
      arbiter and use it for everthing, it isn't strictly useful to still have
      the register poking in the library
    <antrik> however, the code will remain in the library anyways, so we better
      continue using it rather than introducing redundancy...
    <antrik> but again, that's rather a side issue concerning the design of the
      PCI server
    <bddebian> antrik: Fair enough. :)  So how would I even start on this?
    <antrik> bddebian: actually, libpciaccess is a good starting point:
      checking the API should give you a fairly good idea what functionality
      the server needs to implement
    <pinotree> (+1 on library (re)use)
    <bddebian> antrik: KK
    <antrik> sorry, I'm a bit busy right now...