Re: [RFC 00/29] Introduce NVIDIA GPU Virtualization (vGPU) Support

Danilo Krummrich
2024-09-26T13:07:49Z

On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 02:54:38PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 09:42:39AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 11:14:27AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 12:01:40PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 10:49:07AM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> > > > > > 2. Proposal for upstream
> > > > > > ========================
> > > > >
> > > > > What is the strategy in the mid / long term with this?
> > > > >
> > > > > As you know, we're trying to move to Nova and the blockers with the device /
> > > > > driver infrastructure have been resolved and we're able to move forward. Besides
> > > > > that, Dave made great progress on the firmware abstraction side of things.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is this more of a proof of concept? Do you plan to work on Nova in general and
> > > > > vGPU support for Nova?
> > > >
> > > > This is intended to be a real product that customers would use, it is
> > > > not a proof of concept. There is alot of demand for this kind of
> > > > simplified virtualization infrastructure in the host side. The series
> > > > here is the first attempt at making thin host infrastructure and
> > > > Zhi/etc are doing it with an upstream-first approach.
> > > >
> > > > >From the VFIO side I would like to see something like this merged in
> > > > nearish future as it would bring a previously out of tree approach to
> > > > be fully intree using our modern infrastructure. This is a big win for
> > > > the VFIO world.
> > > >
> > > > As a commercial product this will be backported extensively to many
> > > > old kernels and that is harder/impossible if it isn't exclusively in
> > > > C. So, I think nova needs to co-exist in some way.
> > >
> > > Please never make design decisions based on old ancient commercial
> > > kernels that have any relevance to upstream kernel development
> > > today.
> >
> > Greg, you are being too extreme. Those "ancient commercial kernels"
> > have a huge relevance to alot of our community because they are the
> > users that actually run the code we are building and pay for it to be
> > created. Yes we usually (but not always!) push back on accommodations
> > upstream, but taking hard dependencies on rust is currently a very
> > different thing.
>
> That's fine, but again, do NOT make design decisions based on what you
> can, and can not, feel you can slide by one of these companies to get it
> into their old kernels. That's what I take objection to here.
>
> Also always remember please, that the % of overall Linux kernel
> installs, even counting out Android and embedded, is VERY tiny for these
> companies. The huge % overall is doing the "right thing" by using
> upstream kernels. And with the laws in place now that % is only going
> to grow and those older kernels will rightfully fall away into even
> smaller %.
>
> I know those companies pay for many developers, I'm not saying that
> their contributions are any less or more important than others, they all
> are equal. You wouldn't want design decisions for a patch series to be
> dictated by some really old Yocto kernel restrictions that are only in
> autos, right? We are a large community, that's what I'm saying.
>
> > Otherwise, let's slow down here. Nova is still years away from being
> > finished. Nouveau is the in-tree driver for this HW. This series
> > improves on Nouveau. We are definitely not at the point of refusing
> > new code because it is not writte in Rust, RIGHT?

Just a reminder on what I said and not said, respectively. I never said we can't
support this in Nouveau for the short and mid term.

But we can't add new features and support new use-cases in Nouveau *without*
considering the way forward to the new driver.

>
> No, I do object to "we are ignoring the driver being proposed by the
> developers involved for this hardware by adding to the old one instead"
> which it seems like is happening here.
>
> Anyway, let's focus on the code, there's already real issues with this
> patch series as pointed out by me and others that need to be addressed
> before it can go anywhere.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>