Re: [PATCH mlx5-next v6 1/4] PCI: Add sysfs callback to allow MSI-X table size change of SR-IOV VFs

Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-02-19T08:21:07Z

On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 09:52:12AM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 04:39:50PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 12:15:51PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 12:02:39PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > > [+cc Greg in case he wants to chime in on the sysfs discussion.
> > > > TL;DR: we're trying to add/remove sysfs files when a PCI driver that
> > > > supports certain callbacks binds or unbinds; series at
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210209133445.700225-1-leon@kernel.org]
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 09:58:25PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 10:12:12AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 09:33:44AM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 03:01:06PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 03:34:42PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > > > > > > From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> > > >
> > > > > > > > > +int pci_enable_vf_overlay(struct pci_dev *dev)
> > > > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > > > + struct pci_dev *virtfn;
> > > > > > > > > + int id, ret;
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > + if (!dev->is_physfn || !dev->sriov->num_VFs)
> > > > > > > > > + return 0;
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > + ret = sysfs_create_files(&dev->dev.kobj, sriov_pf_dev_attrs);
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But I still don't like the fact that we're calling
> > > > > > > > sysfs_create_files() and sysfs_remove_files() directly. It makes
> > > > > > > > complication and opportunities for errors.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It is not different from any other code that we have in the kernel.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It *is* different. There is a general rule that drivers should not
> > > > > > call sysfs_* [1]. The PCI core is arguably not a "driver," but it is
> > > > > > still true that callers of sysfs_create_files() are very special, and
> > > > > > I'd prefer not to add another one.
> > > > >
> > > > > PCI for me is a bus, and bus is the right place to manage sysfs.
> > > > > But it doesn't matter, we understand each other positions.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Let's be concrete, can you point to the errors in this code that I
> > > > > > > should fix?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not saying there are current errors; I'm saying the additional
> > > > > > code makes errors possible in future code. For example, we hope that
> > > > > > other drivers can use these sysfs interfaces, and it's possible they
> > > > > > may not call pci_enable_vf_overlay() or pci_disable_vfs_overlay()
> > > > > > correctly.
> > > > >
> > > > > If not, we will fix, we just need is to ensure that sysfs name won't
> > > > > change, everything else is easy to change.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Or there may be races in device addition/removal. We have current
> > > > > > issues in this area, e.g., [2], and they're fairly subtle. I'm not
> > > > > > saying your patches have these issues; only that extra code makes more
> > > > > > chances for mistakes and it's more work to validate it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't see the advantage of creating these files only when
> > > > > > > > the PF driver supports this. The management tools have to
> > > > > > > > deal with sriov_vf_total_msix == 0 and sriov_vf_msix_count ==
> > > > > > > > 0 anyway. Having the sysfs files not be present at all might
> > > > > > > > be slightly prettier to the person running "ls", but I'm not
> > > > > > > > sure the code complication is worth that.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It is more than "ls", right now sriov_numvfs is visible without
> > > > > > > relation to the driver, even if driver doesn't implement
> > > > > > > ".sriov_configure", which IMHO bad. We didn't want to repeat.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Right now, we have many devices that supports SR-IOV, but small
> > > > > > > amount of them are capable to rewrite their VF MSI-X table siz.
> > > > > > > We don't want "to punish" and clatter their sysfs.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I agree, it's clutter, but at least it's just cosmetic clutter
> > > > > > (but I'm willing to hear discussion about why it's more than
> > > > > > cosmetic; see below).
> > > > >
> > > > > It is more than cosmetic and IMHO it is related to the driver role.
> > > > > This feature is advertised, managed and configured by PF. It is very
> > > > > natural request that the PF will view/hide those sysfs files.
> > > >
> > > > Agreed, it's natural if the PF driver adds/removes those files. But I
> > > > don't think it's *essential*, and they *could* be static because of
> > > > this:
> > > >
> > > > > > From the management software point of view, I don't think it matters.
> > > > > > That software already needs to deal with files that don't exist (on
> > > > > > old kernels) and files that contain zero (feature not supported or no
> > > > > > vectors are available).
> > > >
> > > > I wonder if sysfs_update_group() would let us have our cake and eat
> > > > it, too? Maybe we could define these files as static attributes and
> > > > call sysfs_update_group() when the PF driver binds or unbinds?
> > > >
> > > > Makes me wonder if the device core could call sysfs_update_group()
> > > > when binding/unbinding drivers. But there are only a few existing
> > > > callers, and it looks like none of them are for the bind/unbind
> > > > situation, so maybe that would be pointless.
> > >
> > > Also it will be not an easy task to do it in driver/core. Our
> > > attributes need to be visible if driver is bound -> we will call to
> > > sysfs_update_group() after ->bind() callback. It means that in
> > > uwind, we will call to sysfs_update_group() before ->unbind() and
> > > the driver will be still bound. So the check is is_supported() for
> > > driver exists/or not won't be possible.
> >
> > Poking around some more, I found .dev_groups, which might be
> > applicable? The test patch below applies to v5.11 and makes the "bh"
> > file visible in devices bound to the uhci_hcd driver if the function
> > number is odd.
>
> This solution can be applicable for generic drivers where we can afford
> to have custom sysfs files for this driver. In our case, we are talking
> about hardware device driver. Both RDMA and netdev are against allowing
> for such drivers to create their own sysfs. It will be real nightmare to
> have different names/layout/output for the same functionality.
>
> This .dev_groups moves responsibility over sysfs to the drivers and it
> is no-go for us.

But it _is_ the driver's responsibility for sysfs files, right?

If not, what exactly are you trying to do here, as I am very confused.

> Another problem with this approach is addition of VFs, not only every
> driver will start to manage its own sysfs, but it will need to iterate
> over PCI bus or internal lists to find VFs, because we want to create
> .set_msix_vec on VFs after PF is bound.

What? I don't understand at all.

> So instead of one, controlled place, we will find ourselves with many
> genius implementations of the same thing in the drivers.

Same _what_ thing?

> Bjorn, we really do standard enable/disable flow with out overlay thing.

Ok, can you step back and try to explain what problem you are trying to
solve first, before getting bogged down in odd details? I find it
highly unlikely that this is something "unique", but I could be wrong as
I do not understand what you are wanting to do here at all.

thanks,

greg k-h