Message-Id: <DD80P7SKMLI2.1FNMP21LJZFCI@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2025 19:37:45 +0200
From: "Danilo Krummrich" <dakr@...nel.org>
To: "Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc: "John Hubbard" <jhubbard@...dia.com>, "Alexandre Courbot"
 <acourbot@...dia.com>, "Joel Fernandes" <joelagnelf@...dia.com>, "Timur
 Tabi" <ttabi@...dia.com>, "Alistair Popple" <apopple@...dia.com>, "Zhi
 Wang" <zhiw@...dia.com>, "Surath Mitra" <smitra@...dia.com>, "David Airlie"
 <airlied@...il.com>, "Simona Vetter" <simona@...ll.ch>, "Alex Williamson"
 <alex.williamson@...hat.com>, "Bjorn Helgaas" <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
 Krzysztof Wilczyński <kwilczynski@...nel.org>, "Miguel
 Ojeda" <ojeda@...nel.org>, "Alex Gaynor" <alex.gaynor@...il.com>, "Boqun
 Feng" <boqun.feng@...il.com>, "Gary Guo" <gary@...yguo.net>,
 Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>, "Benno Lossin"
 <lossin@...nel.org>, "Andreas Hindborg" <a.hindborg@...nel.org>, "Alice
 Ryhl" <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, "Trevor Gross" <tmgross@...ch.edu>,
 <nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org>, <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
 <rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org>, "LKML" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] rust: pci: skip probing VFs if driver doesn't
 support VFs

On Thu Oct 2, 2025 at 7:05 PM CEST, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 02, 2025 at 06:05:28PM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
>> On Thu Oct 2, 2025 at 5:23 PM CEST, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> > This is not what I've been told, the VF driver has significant
>> > programming model differences in the NVIDIA model, and supports
>> > different commands.
>> 
>> Ok, that means there are some more fundamental differences between the host PF
>> and the "VM PF" code that we have to deal with.
>
> That was my understanding.
>  
>> But that doesn't necessarily require that the VF parts of the host have to be in
>> nova-core as well, i.e. with the information we have we can differentiate
>> between PF, VF and PF in the VM (indicated by a device register).
>
> I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this..
>
> The driver to operate the function in "vGPU" mode as indicated by the
> register has to be in nova-core, since there is only one device ID.

Yes, the PF driver on the host and the PF (from VM perspective) driver in the VM
have to be that same. But the VF driver on the host can still be a seaparate
one.

>> > If you look at the VFIO driver RFC it basically does no mediation, it
>> > isn't intercepting MMIO - the guest sees the BARs directly. Most of
>> > the code is "profiling" from what I can tell. Some config space
>> > meddling.
>> 
>> Sure, there is no mediation in that sense, but it needs quite some setup
>> regardless, no?
>>
>> I thought there is a significant amount of semantics that is different between
>> booting the PF and the VF on the host.
>
> I think it would be good to have Zhi clarify more of this, but from
> what I understand are at least three activites comingled all together:
>
>  1) Boot the PF in "vGPU" mode so it can enable SRIOV

Ok, this might be where the confusion above comes from. When I talk about
nova-core in vGPU mode I mean nova-core running in the VM on the (from VM
perspective) PF.

But you seem to mean nova-core running on the host PF with vGPU on top? That of
course has to be in nova-core.

>  2) Enable SRIOV and profile VFs to allocate HW resources to them

I think that's partially in nova-core and partially in vGPU; nova-core providing
the abstraction of the corresponding firmware / hardware interfaces and vGPU
controlling the semantics of the resource handling?

This is what I thought vGPU has a secondary part for where it binds to nova-core
through the auxiliary bus, i.e. vGPU consisting out of two drivers actually; the
VFIO parts and a "per VF resource controller".

>  3) VFIO variant driver to convert the VF into a "VM PF" with whatever
>     mediation and enhancement needed

That should be vGPU only land.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists