On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 11:15:26PM +0800, Tiwei Bie wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 04:44:18PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 08:06:41AM +0800, Tiwei Bie wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 10:34:29PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 08:54:47PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 06:26:15PM +0800, Tiwei Bie wrote:
> > > > > > Allocate a feature bit for virtio devices which support SR-IOV.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Suggested-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <[email protected]>
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Tiwei Bie <[email protected]>
> > > > > > Fixes: https://github.com/oasis-tcs/virtio-spec/issues/11
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > More details can be found from this thread:
> > > > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10285541/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This patch needs below patch applied first:
> > > > > > https://github.com/oasis-tcs/virtio-spec/issues/10
> > > > > > https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/virtio-dev/201805/msg00046.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > v2 -> v3:
> > > > > > - Improve the wording (Cornelia);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > v1 -> v2:
> > > > > > - s/Reserve/Allocate/ (MST);
> > > > > > - Add a Fixes tag (MST);
> > > > > > - Be more explicit in driver requirement (MST);
> > > > > > - Remove the "device MAY fail" description (MST);
> > > > > > - Rebase on IO_BARRIER patch;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > RFC -> v1:
> > > > > > - Mention PCI in the description (Cornelia);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > content.tex | 15 +++++++++++++--
> > > > > > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/content.tex b/content.tex
> > > > > > index 95c243f..e9e6f9a 100644
> > > > > > --- a/content.tex
> > > > > > +++ b/content.tex
> > > > > > @@ -95,10 +95,10 @@ Feature bits are allocated as follows:
> > > > > > \begin{description}
> > > > > > \item[0 to 23] Feature bits for the specific device type
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -\item[24 to 36] Feature bits reserved for extensions to the queue
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > +\item[24 to 37] Feature bits reserved for extensions to the queue
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > feature negotiation mechanisms
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -\item[37 and above] Feature bits reserved for future extensions.
> > > > > > +\item[38 and above] Feature bits reserved for future extensions.
> > > > > > \end{description}
> > > > > >
> > > > > > \begin{note}
> > > > > > @@ -5357,6 +5357,9 @@ Descriptors} and \ref{sec:Packed Virtqueues /
> > > > > > Indirect Flag: Scatter-Gather Supp
> > > > > > better performance. This feature indicates whether
> > > > > > a stronger form of barrier suitable for hardware
> > > > > > devices is necessary.
> > > > > > + \item[VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV(37)] This feature indicates that
> > > > > > + the device supports Single Root I/O Virtualization.
> > > > > > + Currently only PCI devices support this feature.
> > > > >
> > > > > I guess the assumption is that all VFs and the PF are of the same
> > > > > type?
> > > > >
> > > > > I feel it might be handy down the road to support mixing
> > > > > types. For this reason, to avoid binding a wrong driver
> > > > > to a VF, I propose that all VFs have this bit too,
> > > > > and require that drivers ignore VFs without this bit.
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you think?
> > > >
> > > > Thinking more about it, I can see how this might
> > > > interfere with passing VFs through to legacy nested guests.
> > > > How about reversing it then?
> > > >
> > > > Require that drivers MUST NOT negotiate VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV
> > > > if device does not have an SRIOV capability or
> > > > is not a PCI device, in particular a VF.
> > >
> > > I think driver can accept this feature as long as it's
> > > able to handle the SR-IOV capability and there is no
> > > need for it to check whether the device has the SR-IOV
> > > capability.
> >
> > So my point is this, VFs themselves do not have
> > this feature.
>
> Yeah. I also think VFs shouldn't present this feature.
>
> >
> > Should all of them have it? None of them?
> > I don't see what use it is to VFs, but maybe
> > we will come with a use down the road.
> >
> > I propose we require that
> > 1. drivers ignore this if there is
> > no SRIOV cap, and
> >
> > 2. that devices do not expose it.
> >
> > This way if we come up with a use down the road, only new drivers
> > will negotiate it.
>
> I got your point now. Thanks!
>
> How about:
>
> If VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV has been negotiated, a driver can enable
> virtual functions through the device's PCI SR-IOV capability
> structure. A driver MUST NOT negotiate VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV if
> the device does not have a PCI SR-IOV capability structure
> or is not a PCI device. A driver MUST negotiate
> VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV and complete the feature negotiation
> (including setting the DRIVER_OK \field{status} bit) before
> enabling virtual functions through the device's PCI SR-IOV
> capability structure.
Sounds good.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > And device should make sure that it won't
> > > offer this feature if it doesn't present this capability.
> > > How about changing the driver requirement to:
> > >
> > > A driver SHOULD accept VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV if it is offered.
> >
> > This part won't address the issue above.
> >
> >
> > > If VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV has been negotiated, a driver can
> > > enable virtual functions through the device's PCI SR-IOV
> > > capability structure. A driver MUST negotiate VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV
> > > and complete the feature negotiation (including setting
> > > the DRIVER_OK \field{status} bit) before enabling virtual
> > > functions through the device's PCI SR-IOV capability
> > > structure.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > And say a device without SRIOV cap SHOULD NOT expose this bit.
> > > >
> > >
> > > No problem. How about:
> > >
> > > A device SHOULD offer VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV if it presents a
> > > PCI SR-IOV capability structure. A device SHOULD NOT
> > > offer VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV if it doesn't presents
> >
> > doesn't present
>
> Right. Thanks for catching it!
>
> >
> > > a PCI SR-IOV
> > > capability structure.
> >
> > Assuming we teach drivers they should ignore it
> > if it is there without SRIOV, then this last one I'd make MUST NOT.
>
> Okay, how about
>
> A device SHOULD offer VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV if it is a PCI
> device and presents a PCI SR-IOV capability structure,
> otherwise it MUST NOT offer VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV.
>
> Best regards,
> Tiwei Bie
Sounds good.
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > \end{description}
> > > > > >
> > > > > > \drivernormative{\section}{Reserved Feature Bits}{Reserved Feature
> > > > > > Bits}
> > > > > > @@ -5376,6 +5379,11 @@ A driver SHOULD accept VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER
> > > > > > if it is offered.
> > > > > > If VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER has been negotiated, a driver MUST use
> > > > > > the barriers suitable for hardware devices.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +A driver SHOULD accept VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV if it is offered.
> > > > > > +If VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV has been negotiated, a driver can
> > > > > > +enable virtual functions through the device's PCI SR-IOV
> > > > > > +capability structure.
> > > > >
> > > > > I feel the last sentence isn't clear enough. How about
> > > > >
> > > > > a driver MUST negotiate VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV and complete the feature
> > > > > negotiation (including setting the DRIVER_OK \field{status} bit)
> > > > > before
> > > > > enabling virtual functions through the device's PCI SR-IOV capability
> > > > > structure.
> > > > >
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > \devicenormative{\section}{Reserved Feature Bits}{Reserved Feature
> > > > > > Bits}
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A device MUST offer VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1. A device MAY fail to
> > > > > > operate further
> > > > > > @@ -5392,6 +5400,9 @@ buffers in the same order in which they have
> > > > > > been available.
> > > > > > A device MAY fail to operate further if VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER
> > > > > > is not accepted.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +A device SHOULD offer VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV if it presents a PCI
> > > > > > +SR-IOV capability structure.
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > \section{Legacy Interface: Reserved Feature
> > > > > > Bits}\label{sec:Reserved Feature Bits / Legacy Interface: Reserved
> > > > > > Feature Bits}
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Transitional devices MAY offer the following:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > 2.17.0
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > > > > [email protected]
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
