From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2677C4332F for ; Mon, 27 Sep 2021 11:55:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EDFB60F9B for ; Mon, 27 Sep 2021 11:55:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234195AbhI0L5H (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Sep 2021 07:57:07 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:57874 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S234051AbhI0L5F (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Sep 2021 07:57:05 -0400 Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4A39560F6C; Mon, 27 Sep 2021 11:55:27 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1632743728; bh=ftp5e/Z+bgMoB8q+w6BD3W3PyXq/J5hOEt/FeFtg5iw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=cLW1ZttLbuD8ca0mc7zREupyRk157igHo9VdiTVDhaf3Onjc0pcD/HvNPg7YbmCsn LW/EATH3aCX2igPQ4OO8LiviYoPdGtFHVah24g3WvF0SLoWgRp9qG4NWSqXjvdeRF3 D+J+hjRPsIX5QAaVxMJGiZ+53icrKUmCg30kNuBBUoanCuNs+xAGsRt0DJsaXqsRbw AOYpGw+FxTB9urNvntdLGc0cII98syp37ruqfkMb7f1GLuvSSpL0qC6PmXjx8EN3sx OLWaYzi+rkD46JQOXBu8cswQQJwdeaHY0K15F4/315PoY7ERvyJfUQJsXa65Kf+fUe QbtbjunK8uFcw== Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 14:55:24 +0300 From: Leon Romanovsky To: Bjorn Helgaas Cc: Doug Ledford , Jason Gunthorpe , Alex Williamson , Bjorn Helgaas , "David S. Miller" , Jakub Kicinski , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Saeed Mahameed , Yishai Hadas Subject: Re: [PATCH mlx5-next 1/7] PCI/IOV: Provide internal VF index Message-ID: References: <20210926202341.GA588922@bhelgaas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210926202341.GA588922@bhelgaas> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Sep 26, 2021 at 03:23:41PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Sun, Sep 26, 2021 at 09:36:49AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 12:41:15PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 01:10:39PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 08:08:45AM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 09:35:32AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 04:59:30PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 01:38:50PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > > > > > > > From: Jason Gunthorpe > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The PCI core uses the VF index internally, often called the vf_id, > > > > > > > > during the setup of the VF, eg pci_iov_add_virtfn(). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This index is needed for device drivers that implement live migration > > > > > > > > for their internal operations that configure/control their VFs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Specifically, mlx5_vfio_pci driver that is introduced in coming patches > > > > > > > > from this series needs it and not the bus/device/function which is > > > > > > > > exposed today. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Add pci_iov_vf_id() which computes the vf_id by reversing the math that > > > > > > > > was used to create the bus/device/function. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Yishai Hadas > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jason Gunthorpe > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Bjorn Helgaas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mlx5_core_sriov_set_msix_vec_count() looks like it does basically the > > > > > > > same thing as pci_iov_vf_id() by iterating through VFs until it finds > > > > > > > one with a matching devfn (although it *doesn't* check for a matching > > > > > > > bus number, which seems like a bug). > > > > ... > > > > > > > > And it still looks like the existing code is buggy. This is called > > > > > via sysfs, so if the PF is on bus X and the user writes to > > > > > sriov_vf_msix_count for a VF on bus X+1, it looks like > > > > > mlx5_core_sriov_set_msix_vec_count() will set the count for the wrong > > > > > VF. > > > > > > > > In mlx5_core_sriov_set_msix_vec_count(), we receive VF that is connected > > > > to PF which has "struct mlx5_core_dev". My expectation is that they share > > > > same bus as that PF was the one who created VFs. The mlx5 devices supports > > > > upto 256 VFs and it is far below the bus split mentioned in PCI spec. > > > > > > > > How can VF and their respective PF have different bus numbers? > > > > > > See PCIe r5.0, sec 9.2.1.2. For example, > > > > > > PF 0 on bus 20 > > > First VF Offset 1 > > > VF Stride 1 > > > NumVFs 511 > > > VF 0,1 through VF 0,255 on bus 20 > > > VF 0,256 through VF 0,511 on bus 21 > > > > > > This is implemented in pci_iov_add_virtfn(), which computes the bus > > > number and devfn from the VF ID. > > > > > > pci_iov_virtfn_devfn(VF 0,1) == pci_iov_virtfn_devfn(VF 0,256), so if > > > the user writes to sriov_vf_msix_count for VF 0,256, it looks like > > > we'll call mlx5_set_msix_vec_count() for VF 0,1 instead of VF 0,256. > > > > This is PCI spec split that I mentioned. > > > > > > > > The spec encourages devices that require no more than 256 devices to > > > locate them all on the same bus number (PCIe r5.0, sec 9.1), so if you > > > only have 255 VFs, you may avoid the problem. > > > > > > But in mlx5_core_sriov_set_msix_vec_count(), it's not obvious that it > > > is safe to assume the bus number is the same. > > > > No problem, we will make it more clear. > > IMHO you should resolve it by using the new interface. Better > performing, unambiguous regardless of how many VFs the device > supports. What's the down side? I don't see any. My previous answer worth to be written. "No problem, we will make it more clear with this new function". Thanks