[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210125195905.GA4147@nvidia.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 15:59:05 -0400
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Edwin Peer <edwin.peer@...adcom.com>
CC: Parav Pandit <parav@...dia.com>, Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
Kiran Patil <kiran.patil@...el.com>,
Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>,
"Ertman, David M" <david.m.ertman@...el.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [pull request][net-next V10 00/14] Add mlx5 subfunction support
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:34:49AM -0800, Edwin Peer wrote:
> What do these amount to in practice? Presumably config space is backed
> by normal memory controlled by firmware. Do VF's need to expose ECAM?
> Also, don't MSI tables come out of the BAR budget? Is the required BAR
> space necessarily more than any other addressable unit that can be
> delegated to a SF?
Every writable data mandated by the PCI spec requires very expensive
on-die SRAM to store it.
We've seen Intel drivers that show their SIOV ADIs don't even have a
register file and the only PCI presence is just a write-only doorbell
page in the BAR.
It is hard to argue a write-only register in a BAR page vs all the
SRIOV trappings when it comes to HW cost.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists