lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Sep]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [RFC 3/3] vfio/pci: Expose PCIe PASID capability to userspace
Date
> From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2023 2:53 AM
>
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2023 08:07:54 +0000
> "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com> wrote:
>
> > > From: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@intel.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 5:31 PM
> > >
> > > This exposes PCIe PASID capability to userspace and where to emulate
> this
> > > capability if wants to further expose it to VM.
> > >
> > > And this only exposes PASID capability for devices which has PCIe PASID
> > > extended struture in its configuration space. While for VFs, userspace
> > > is still unable to see this capability as SR-IOV spec forbides VF to
> > > implement PASID capability extended structure. It is a TODO in future.
> > > Related discussion can be found in below links:
> > >
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20200407095801.648b1371@w520.home/
> > >
> https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/BL1PR11MB5271A60035EF591A5BE8AC878C01A
> > > @BL1PR11MB5271.namprd11.prod.outlook.com/
> > >
> >
> > Yes, we need a decision for VF case.
> >
> > If the consensus is to continue exposing the PASID capability in vfio-pci
> > config space by developing a kernel quirk mechanism to find offset for
> > VF, then this patch for PF is orthogonal to that VF work and can go as it is.
> >
> > But if the decision is to have a device feature for the user to enumerate
> > the vPASID capability and let the VMM take care of finding the vPASID
> > cap offset, then better we start doing that for PF too since it's not good
> > to have two enumeration interfaces for PF/VF respectively.
>
> Note also that QEMU implements a lazy algorithm for exposing
> capabilities, the default is to expose them, so we need to consider
> existing VMs seeing a new read-only PASID capability on an assigned PF.
>
> That might support an alternate means to expose the capability.

Yep. that's also a valid point.

>
> > My preference is via device feature given Qemu already includes lots of
> > quirks for vfio-pci devices. Another reason is that when supporting vPASID
> > with SIOV there are some arch constraints which the driver needs to
> > report to the user to follow (e.g. don't assign ENQCMD-capable sibling
> > vdev's to a same guest, etc.).
>
> ?!

Sorry that I didn't plan to elaborate that tricky constraint before we show
the overall SIOV/vPASID implementation. Explaining it requires lots of
context and here just want to mention the potential requirement in case
we need more proofs to go this direction. 😊

>
> > A device feature interface can better
> > encapsulate everything related to vPASID in one place.
>
> Sorry if I don't remember, have you posted a proposal for the device
> feature interface? Thanks,
>

Not yet. Will do in next version.
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-09-28 03:47    [W:0.086 / U:1.988 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site