[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <MWHPR11MB16459716A1897F79E860AB4D8CE80@MWHPR11MB1645.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 02:17:48 +0000
From: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
"Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
"Bjorn Helgaas" <helgaas@...nel.org>,
"vkoul@...nel.org" <vkoul@...nel.org>,
"Dey, Megha" <megha.dey@...el.com>,
"maz@...nel.org" <maz@...nel.org>,
"bhelgaas@...gle.com" <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
"alex.williamson@...hat.com" <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
"Pan, Jacob jun" <jacob.jun.pan@...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>,
"kwankhede@...dia.com" <kwankhede@...dia.com>,
"eric.auger@...hat.com" <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
"parav@...lanox.com" <parav@...lanox.com>,
"rafael@...nel.org" <rafael@...nel.org>,
"netanelg@...lanox.com" <netanelg@...lanox.com>,
"shahafs@...lanox.com" <shahafs@...lanox.com>,
"yan.y.zhao@...ux.intel.com" <yan.y.zhao@...ux.intel.com>,
"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"Ortiz, Samuel" <samuel.ortiz@...el.com>,
"Hossain, Mona" <mona.hossain@...el.com>,
"dmaengine@...r.kernel.org" <dmaengine@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v4 06/17] PCI: add SIOV and IMS capability detection
> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 10:24 PM
>
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 06:13:23AM -0800, Raj, Ashok wrote:
>
> > This isn't just for idxd, as I mentioned earlier, there are vendors other
> > than Intel already working on this. In all cases the need for guest direct
> > manipulation of interrupt store hasn't come up. From the discussion, it
> > seems like there are devices today or in future that will require direct
> > manipulation of interrupt store in the guest. This needs additional work
> > in both the device hardware providing the right plumbing and OS work to
> > comprehend those.
>
> We'd want to see SRIOV's assigned to guests to be able to use
> IMS. This allows a SRIOV instance in a guest to spawn SIOV's which is
> useful.
Does your VF support both MSI/IMS or IMS only? If it is the former can't
we adopt a phased approach or parallel effort between forcing guest
to use MSI and adding hypercall to enable IMS on VF? Finding a way
to disable IMS is anyway required per earlier discussion when hypercall
is not available, and it could still provide a functional though suboptimal
model for such VFs.
>
> SIOV's assigned to guests could use IMS, but the use cases we see in
> the short term can be handled by using SRIOV instead.
>
> I would expect in general for SIOV to use MSI-X emulation to expose
> interrupts - it would be really weird for a SIOV emulator to do
> something else and we should probably discourage that.
>
I agree with this point. This leaves hardware gaps in IOMMU and root
complex less an immediate blocker and to be addressed in the long term.
Thanks
Kevin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists