[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201112134609.GF2620339@nvidia.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2020 09:46:09 -0400
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
CC: "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
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
On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 02:17:48AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > 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?
Of course VF's support MSI..
> 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.
Sure, I view that as the bare minimum
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists