On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 09:04:31AM +0100, Klaus Jensen wrote:
> On Nov 16 16:34, Łukasz Gieryk wrote:
> > With four new properties:
> > - sriov_v{i,q}_flexible,
> > - sriov_max_v{i,q}_per_vf,
> > one can configure the number of available flexible resources, as well as
> > the limits. The primary and secondary controller capability structures
> > are initialized accordingly.
> >
> > Since the number of available queues (interrupts) now varies between
> > VF/PF, BAR size calculation is also adjusted.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Łukasz Gieryk <lukasz.gie...@linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> > hw/nvme/ctrl.c | 138 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> > hw/nvme/nvme.h | 4 ++
> > include/block/nvme.h | 5 ++
> > 3 files changed, 140 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/hw/nvme/ctrl.c b/hw/nvme/ctrl.c
> > index f8f5dfe204..f589ffde59 100644
> > --- a/hw/nvme/ctrl.c
> > +++ b/hw/nvme/ctrl.c
> > @@ -6358,13 +6444,40 @@ static void nvme_init_state(NvmeCtrl *n)
> > n->starttime_ms = qemu_clock_get_ms(QEMU_CLOCK_VIRTUAL);
> > n->aer_reqs = g_new0(NvmeRequest *, n->params.aerl + 1);
> >
> > - list->numcntl = cpu_to_le16(n->params.sriov_max_vfs);
> > - for (i = 0; i < n->params.sriov_max_vfs; i++) {
> > + list->numcntl = cpu_to_le16(max_vfs);
> > + for (i = 0; i < max_vfs; i++) {
> > sctrl = &list->sec[i];
> > sctrl->pcid = cpu_to_le16(n->cntlid);
> > }
> >
> > cap->cntlid = cpu_to_le16(n->cntlid);
> > + cap->crt = NVME_CRT_VQ | NVME_CRT_VI;
> > +
> > + if (pci_is_vf(&n->parent_obj)) {
> > + cap->vqprt = cpu_to_le16(1 + n->conf_ioqpairs);
> > + } else {
> > + cap->vqprt = cpu_to_le16(1 + n->params.max_ioqpairs -
> > + n->params.sriov_vq_flexible);
> > + cap->vqfrt = cpu_to_le32(n->params.sriov_vq_flexible);
> > + cap->vqrfap = cap->vqfrt;
> > + cap->vqgran = cpu_to_le16(NVME_VF_RES_GRANULARITY);
> > + cap->vqfrsm = n->params.sriov_max_vq_per_vf ?
> > + cpu_to_le16(n->params.sriov_max_vq_per_vf) :
> > + cap->vqprt;
>
> That this defaults to VQPRT doesn't seem right. It should default to
> VQFRT. Does not make sense to report a maximum number of assignable
> flexible resources that are bigger than the number of flexible resources
> available.
I’ve explained in on of v1 threads why I think using the current default
is better than VQPRT.
What you’ve noticed is indeed an inconvenience, but it’s – at least in
my opinion – part of the design. What matters is the current number of
unassigned flexible resources. It may be lower than VQFRSM due to
multiple reasons:
1) resources are bound to PF,
2) resources are bound to other VFs,
3) resources simply don’t exist (not baked in silicone: VQFRT < VQFRSM).
If 1) and 2) are allowed to happen, and the user must be aware of that,
then why 3) shouldn’t?
