[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <59034a932606e25c0b260540fff0b6dc.squirrel@twosheds.infradead.org>
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2020 22:09:38 -0000
From: "David Woodhouse" <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To: "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: "Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@...dia.com>,
"Tian\, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
"Jiang\, Dave" <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
"Bjorn Helgaas" <helgaas@...nel.org>,
"vkoul\@kernel.org" <vkoul@...nel.org>,
"Dey\, Megha" <megha.dey@...el.com>,
"maz\@kernel.org" <maz@...nel.org>,
"bhelgaas\@google.com" <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
"alex.williamson\@redhat.com" <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
"Pan\, Jacob jun" <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>,
"Raj\, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
"Liu\, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
"Lu\, Baolu" <baolu.lu@...el.com>,
"Kumar\, Sanjay K" <sanjay.k.kumar@...el.com>,
"Luck\, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"jing.lin\@intel.com" <jing.lin@...el.com>,
"Williams\, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
"kwankhede\@nvidia.com" <kwankhede@...dia.com>,
"eric.auger\@redhat.com" <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
"parav\@mellanox.com" <parav@...lanox.com>,
"rafael\@kernel.org" <rafael@...nel.org>,
"netanelg\@mellanox.com" <netanelg@...lanox.com>,
"shahafs\@mellanox.com" <shahafs@...lanox.com>,
"yan.y.zhao\@linux.intel.com" <yan.y.zhao@...ux.intel.com>,
"pbonzini\@redhat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"Ortiz\, Samuel" <samuel.ortiz@...el.com>,
"Hossain\, Mona" <mona.hossain@...el.com>,
"dmaengine\@vger.kernel.org" <dmaengine@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pci\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
"kvm\@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 06/17] PCI: add SIOV and IMS capability detection
> On Fri, Nov 06 2020 at 09:14, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 09:48:34AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> For instance you could put a "disable IMS" flag in the ACPI tables, in
>> the config space of the emuulated root port, or any other areas that
>> clearly belong to the platform.
>>
>> The OS logic would be
>> - If no IMS information found then use IMS (Bare metal)
>> - If the IMS disable flag is found then
>> - If (future) hypercall available and the OS knows how to use it
>> then use IMS
>> - If no hypercall found, or no OS knowledge, fail IMS
>
> That does not work because an older hypervisor would not have that
> disable flag and the guest kernel would assume to be on bare metal (if
> no other indicators are there).
In the absence of a forward-thinking design from Intel perhaps we could
use the existence of an IOMMU with interrupt remapping and not caching
mode as the indication that it's bare metal?
--
dwmw2
Powered by blists - more mailing lists