[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7c591bad-75ed-75bc-5dac-e26bdde6e615@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2021 15:33:09 +0800
From: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, moyufeng <moyufeng@...wei.com>
CC: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>,
Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"michal.lkml@...kovi.net" <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
Salil Mehta <salil.mehta@...wei.com>,
"lipeng (Y)" <lipeng321@...wei.com>,
Guangbin Huang <huangguangbin2@...wei.com>,
<shenjian15@...wei.com>, "chenhao (DY)" <chenhao288@...ilicon.com>,
Jiaran Zhang <zhangjiaran@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 0/8] Introducing subdev bus and devlink extension
On 2021/6/1 13:37, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Mon, 31 May 2021 18:36:12 +0800 moyufeng wrote:
>> Hi, Jiri & Jakub
>>
>> Generally, a devlink instance is created for each PF/VF. This
>> facilitates the query and configuration of the settings of each
>> function. But if some common objects, like the health status of
>> the entire ASIC, the data read by those instances will be duplicate.
>>
>> So I wonder do I just need to apply a public devlink instance for the
>> entire ASIC to avoid reading the same data? If so, then I can't set
>> parameters for each function individually. Or is there a better suggestion
>> to implement it?
>
> I don't think there is a great way to solve this today. In my mind
> devlink instances should be per ASIC, but I never had to solve this
> problem for a multi-function ASIC.
Is there a reason why it didn't have to be solved yet?
Is it because the devices currently supporting devlink do not have
this kind of problem, like single-function ASIC or multi-function
ASIC without sharing common resource?
Was there a discussion how to solved it in the past?
>
> Can you assume all functions are in the same control domain? Can they
> trust each other?
"same control domain" means if it is controlled by a single host, not
by multi hosts, right?
If the PF is not passed through to a vm using VFIO and other PF is still
in the host, then I think we can say it is controlled by a single host.
And each PF is trusted with each other right now, at least at the driver
level, but not between VF.
>
> .
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists