Date:   Tue, 21 Mar 2017 08:23:29 -0600
From:   Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
To:     Gavin Shan <gwshan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     Bodong Wang <bodong@...lanox.com>, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        saeedm@...lanox.com, Eli Cohen <eli@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pci/sriov: Add an option to probe VFs or not before
 enabling SR-IOV

On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 20:25:18 +1100
Gavin Shan <gwshan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 12:01:58AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> >On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 16:43:05 +1100
> >Gavin Shan <gwshan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:  
> >> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 10:57:08PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:  
> >> >On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 18:34:23 -0500
> >> >Bodong Wang <bodong@...lanox.com> wrote:    
> >> 
> >> .../...
> >>   
> >> >> > Bodong, I'm not sure if there is a requirement to load driver for the
> >> >> > specified number of VFs? That indicates no driver will be loaded for
> >> >> > other VFs. If so, this interface might serve the purpose as well.      
> >> >> Gavin, thanks for the review. That is indeed an interesting suggestion. 
> >> >> Theoretically,  we can change that probe_vfs from boolean to integer. 
> >> >> And use it as a counter to probe the first N VFs(if N < total_vfs).  
> >> >> Let's see if there are any objections.    
> >> >
> >> >Is it just me or does this seem like a confusing user interface, ie. to
> >> >get binary on/off behavior a user now needs to 'cat total_vfs >
> >> >sriov_probe_vfs'.  It's not very intuitive, what's the use case for it?
> >> >    
> >> 
> >> After it's changed to integer, it accepts number. If users want to load
> >> driver for all VFs and don't want to check the maximal number of VFs,
> >> they can simply write 0xffffffff. So "on" and "off" are replaced with 0xffffffff
> >> and 0, but users has to press the keyboard more times though.
> >> 
> >> drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/main.c::probe_vfs_argc allows to specify
> >> the number of VFs with which we're going to bind drivers. Less time is needed
> >> to enable SRIOV capability. As I had in some development environment: assume
> >> PF supports 256 VFs and I'm going to enable all of them, but I only want to
> >> load driver for two of them, then test the data path on those two VFs. Besides,
> >> I can image the VF needn't a driver in host if it's going to be passed to guest. 
> >> Not sure how much sense it makes.  
> >
> >Yes, I understand what you're trying to do, but I still think it's
> >confusing for a user interface.  This also doesn't answer what's the
> >practical, typical user case you see where it's useful to probe some
> >VFs but not others.  The case listed is a development case where you
> >could just as easily disable all probing, then manually bind the first
> >two VFs to the host driver.  Which is the better design, impose a
> >confusing interface on all users to simplify an obscure development
> >environment or simplify the user interface and assume developers know
> >how to bind devices otherwise?  Thanks,
> >  
> 
> Yeah, your explanation is also fairly reasonable. The interface has
> been named as "probe_vfs" instead of "probe_vf" or "probe_vf_driver".
> So it seems it should accept number of VFs on which drivers are loaded.
> Besides, making this interface accept number corresponds to 3 possiblities:
> all, none and load drivers on part of available VFs. So more flexibility
> is gained.
> 
> User can theoritically have the use case as I had - passing through
> some of the VFs to guest: (A) All VFs are bound with drivers; (B) unbind
> the drivers for some of the VFs; (C) bind the VFs with vfio-pci; (D) passing
> through; (A) is overhead in this scenario. Some CPU cycles are saved if (A)
> is avoided.

Huh?  I'm asking what the practical and typical use case is for this
and you're rehashing the name of the interface and giving me
theoretical examples.  Outside of your development environment, why
would a user every actually want to do this?

If we want to talk about the ABI, I would suggest drawing from existing
ABIs.  We already have drivers_autoprobe as part of the standard sysfs
ABI, so if we want a binary switch, then sriov_drivers_autoprobe might
be a logical choice.  If you're concerned about this mythical overhead
of binding to one driver then another, then why not draw from the
driver_override interface to allow the user to specify the driver to
bind to, perhaps sriov_driver_override.  Then if the user wants to bind
all the devices to vfio-pci, they can do so easily.  I still fail to
see that probing some fixed number of the VFs and leaving the rest
unprobed has any practical value and I imagine bugs coming in because
users are confused why some of their VFs behave differently than
others.  Thanks,

Alex

Powered by blists - more mailing lists