netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
To: Ajit Khaparde <ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com>
Cc: andrew.gospodarek@broadcom.com, davem@davemloft.net,
	edumazet@google.com, jgg@ziepe.ca, kuba@kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org,
	michael.chan@broadcom.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	pabeni@redhat.com, selvin.xavier@broadcom.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] Add Auxiliary driver support
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2022 11:13:44 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y4XNSBO+2/YOL9+C@unreal> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACZ4nhvJV32pmOU7mRfaYYnatN6Ef5T3M=nVTYjuk7mnqcUxtw@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 06:01:13PM -0800, Ajit Khaparde wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 10:59 PM Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 07:02:45AM -0800, Ajit Khaparde wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 5:22 AM Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > ::snip::
> > > > > > All PCI management logic and interfaces are needed to be inside eth part
> > > > > > of your driver and only that part should implement SR-IOV config. Once
> > > > > > user enabled SR-IOV, the PCI driver should create auxiliary devices for
> > > > > > each VF. These device will have RDMA capabilities and it will trigger RDMA
> > > > > > driver to bind to them.
> > > > > I agree and once the PF creates the auxiliary devices for the VF, the RoCE
> > > > > Vf indeed get probed and created. But the twist in bnxt_en/bnxt_re
> > > > > design is that
> > > > > the RoCE driver is responsible for making adjustments to the RoCE resources.
> > > >
> > > > You can still do these adjustments by checking type of function that
> > > > called to RDMA .probe. PCI core exposes some functions to help distinguish between
> > > > PF and VFs.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > So once the VF's are created and the bnxt_en driver enables SRIOV adjusts the
> > > > > NIC resources for the VF,  and such, it tries to call into the bnxt_re
> > > > > driver for the
> > > > > same purpose.
> > > >
> > > > If I read code correctly, all these resources are for one PCI function.
> > > >
> > > > Something like this:
> > > >
> > > > bnxt_re_probe()
> > > > {
> > > >   ...
> > > >         if (is_virtfn(p))
> > > >                  bnxt_re_sriov_config(p);
> > > >   ...
> > > > }
> > > I understand what you are suggesting.
> > > But what I want is a way to do this in the context of the PF
> > > preferably before the VFs are probed.
> >
> > I don't understand the last sentence. You call to this sriov_config in
> > bnxt_re driver without any protection from VFs being probed,
> 
> Let me elaborate -
> When a user sets num_vfs to a non-zero number, the PCI driver hook
> sriov_configure calls bnxt_sriov_configure(). Once pci_enable_sriov()
> succeeds, bnxt_ulp_sriov_cfg() is issued under bnxt_sriov_configure().
> All this happens under bnxt_en.
> bnxt_ulp_sriov_cfg() ultimately calls into the bnxt_re driver.
> Since bnxt_sriov_configure() is called only for PFs, bnxt_ulp_sriov_cfg()
> is called for PFs only.
> 
> Once bnxt_ulp_sriov_cfg() calls into the bnxt_re via the ulp_ops,
> it adjusts the QPs, SRQs, CQs, MRs, GIDs and such.

Once you called to pci_enable_sriov(), PCI core created sysfs entries
and it triggers udev rules and VFs probe. Because you are calling it
in bnxt_sriov_configure(), you will have inherit protection for PF
with PCI lock, but not for VFs.

> 
> >
> > > So we are trying to call the
> > > bnxt_re_sriov_config in the context of handling the PF's
> > > sriov_configure implementation.  Having the ulp_ops is allowing us to
> > > avoid resource wastage and assumptions in the bnxt_re driver.
> >
> > To which resource wastage are you referring?
> Essentially the PF driver reserves a set of above resources for the PF,
> and divides the remaining resources among the VFs.
> If the calculation is based on sriov_totalvfs instead of sriov_numvfs,
> there can be a difference in the resources provisioned for a VF.
> And that is because a user may create a subset of VFs instead of the
> total VFs allowed in the PCI SR-IOV capability register.
> I was referring to the resource wastage in that deployment scenario.

It is ok, set all needed limits in bnxt_en. You don't need to call to
bnxt_re for that.

> 
> Thanks
> Ajit
> 
> >
> > There are no differences if same limits will be in bnxt_en driver when
> > RDMA bnxt device is created or in bnxt_re which will be called once RDMA
> > device is created.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > >
> > > ::snip::
> >
> >



  reply	other threads:[~2022-11-29  9:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-11-09 18:42 [PATCH v4 0/6] Add Auxiliary driver support Ajit Khaparde
2022-11-09 18:42 ` [PATCH v4 1/6] bnxt_en: Add auxiliary " Ajit Khaparde
2022-11-09 18:42 ` [PATCH v4 2/6] RDMA/bnxt_re: Use auxiliary driver interface Ajit Khaparde
2022-11-09 18:42 ` [PATCH v4 3/6] bnxt_en: Remove usage of ulp_id Ajit Khaparde
2022-11-09 18:42 ` [PATCH v4 4/6] bnxt_en: Use direct API instead of indirection Ajit Khaparde
2022-11-09 18:42 ` [PATCH v4 5/6] bnxt_en: Use auxiliary bus calls over proprietary calls Ajit Khaparde
2022-11-09 18:42 ` [PATCH v4 6/6] bnxt_en: Remove struct bnxt access from RoCE driver Ajit Khaparde
2022-11-10 10:53 ` [PATCH v4 0/6] Add Auxiliary driver support Leon Romanovsky
2022-11-15  0:47   ` Ajit Khaparde
2022-11-16 13:22     ` Leon Romanovsky
2022-11-22 15:02       ` Ajit Khaparde
2022-11-23  6:58         ` Leon Romanovsky
2022-11-29  2:01           ` Ajit Khaparde
2022-11-29  9:13             ` Leon Romanovsky [this message]
2022-12-07 17:49               ` Ajit Khaparde

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=Y4XNSBO+2/YOL9+C@unreal \
    --to=leon@kernel.org \
    --cc=ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com \
    --cc=andrew.gospodarek@broadcom.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=edumazet@google.com \
    --cc=jgg@ziepe.ca \
    --cc=kuba@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=michael.chan@broadcom.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
    --cc=selvin.xavier@broadcom.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).