Re: [PATCH net-next 00/19] Mellanox, mlx5 sub function support

gregkh
2019-11-10T09:19:03Z

On Sat, Nov 09, 2019 at 09:27:47AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 20:44:26 -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 01:45:59PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > Yes, my suggestion to use mdev was entirely based on the premise that
> > > the purpose of this work is to get vfio working.. otherwise I'm unclear
> > > as to why we'd need a bus in the first place. If this is just for
> > > containers - we have macvlan offload for years now, with no need for a
> > > separate device.
> >
> > This SF thing is a full fledged VF function, it is not at all like
> > macvlan. This is perhaps less important for the netdev part of the
> > world, but the difference is very big for the RDMA side, and should
> > enable VFIO too..
>
> Well, macvlan used VMDq so it was pretty much a "legacy SR-IOV" VF.
> I'd perhaps need to learn more about RDMA to appreciate the difference.
>
> > > On the RDMA/Intel front, would you mind explaining what the main
> > > motivation for the special buses is? I'm a little confurious.
> >
> > Well, the issue is driver binding. For years we have had these
> > multi-function netdev drivers that have a single PCI device which must
> > bind into multiple subsystems, ie mlx5 does netdev and RDMA, the cxgb
> > drivers do netdev, RDMA, SCSI initiator, SCSI target, etc. [And I
> > expect when NVMe over TCP rolls out we will have drivers like cxgb4
> > binding to 6 subsytems in total!]
>
> What I'm missing is why is it so bad to have a driver register to
> multiple subsystems.

Because these PCI devices seem to do "different" things all in one PCI
resource set. Blame the hardware designers :)

> I've seen no end of hacks caused people trying to split their driver
> too deeply by functionality. Separate sub-drivers, buses and modules.
>
> The nfp driver was split up before I upstreamed it, I merged it into
> one monolithic driver/module. Code is still split up cleanly internally,
> the architecture doesn't change in any major way. Sure 5% of developers
> were upset they can't do some partial reloads they were used to, but
> they got used to the new ways, and 100% of users were happy about the
> simplicity.

I agree, you should stick with the "one device/driver" thing where ever
possible, like you did.

> For the nfp I think the _real_ reason to have a bus was that it
> was expected to have some out-of-tree modules bind to it. Something
> I would not encourage :)

That's not ok, and I agree with you.

But there seems to be some more complex PCI devices that do lots of
different things all at once. Kind of like a PCI device that wants to
be both a keyboard and a storage device at the same time (i.e. a button
on a disk drive...)

thanks,

greg k-h