[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230927125231.3aacde62.alex.williamson@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2023 12:52:31 -0600
From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
Cc: "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
"jgg@...dia.com" <jgg@...dia.com>,
"robin.murphy@....com" <robin.murphy@....com>,
"baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com" <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
"joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>,
"cohuck@...hat.com" <cohuck@...hat.com>,
"eric.auger@...hat.com" <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
"nicolinc@...dia.com" <nicolinc@...dia.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com" <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>,
"chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com" <chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com>,
"yi.y.sun@...ux.intel.com" <yi.y.sun@...ux.intel.com>,
"peterx@...hat.com" <peterx@...hat.com>,
"jasowang@...hat.com" <jasowang@...hat.com>,
"shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com"
<shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>,
"lulu@...hat.com" <lulu@...hat.com>,
"suravee.suthikulpanit@....com" <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>,
"iommu@...ts.linux.dev" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
"Duan, Zhenzhong" <zhenzhong.duan@...el.com>,
"Martins, Joao" <joao.m.martins@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 3/3] vfio/pci: Expose PCIe PASID capability to userspace
On Wed, 27 Sep 2023 08:07:54 +0000
"Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com> wrote:
> > From: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@...el.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 5:31 PM
> >
> > This exposes PCIe PASID capability to userspace and where to emulate this
> > capability if wants to further expose it to VM.
> >
> > And this only exposes PASID capability for devices which has PCIe PASID
> > extended struture in its configuration space. While for VFs, userspace
> > is still unable to see this capability as SR-IOV spec forbides VF to
> > implement PASID capability extended structure. It is a TODO in future.
> > Related discussion can be found in below links:
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20200407095801.648b1371@w520.home/
> > https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/BL1PR11MB5271A60035EF591A5BE8AC878C01A
> > @BL1PR11MB5271.namprd11.prod.outlook.com/
> >
>
> Yes, we need a decision for VF case.
>
> If the consensus is to continue exposing the PASID capability in vfio-pci
> config space by developing a kernel quirk mechanism to find offset for
> VF, then this patch for PF is orthogonal to that VF work and can go as it is.
>
> But if the decision is to have a device feature for the user to enumerate
> the vPASID capability and let the VMM take care of finding the vPASID
> cap offset, then better we start doing that for PF too since it's not good
> to have two enumeration interfaces for PF/VF respectively.
Note also that QEMU implements a lazy algorithm for exposing
capabilities, the default is to expose them, so we need to consider
existing VMs seeing a new read-only PASID capability on an assigned PF.
That might support an alternate means to expose the capability.
> My preference is via device feature given Qemu already includes lots of
> quirks for vfio-pci devices. Another reason is that when supporting vPASID
> with SIOV there are some arch constraints which the driver needs to
> report to the user to follow (e.g. don't assign ENQCMD-capable sibling
> vdev's to a same guest, etc.).
?!
> A device feature interface can better
> encapsulate everything related to vPASID in one place.
Sorry if I don't remember, have you posted a proposal for the device
feature interface? Thanks,
Alex
Powered by blists - more mailing lists