From: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc: Tiwei Bie <tiwei.bie@intel.com>,
stefanha@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.com,
virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org, dan.daly@intel.com,
alexander.h.duyck@intel.com, mark.d.rustad@intel.com,
cunming.liang@intel.com, zhihong.wang@intel.com
Subject: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH v2] content: document SR-IOV driver requirements
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2018 14:36:24 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180608143624.6ebe94c0.cohuck@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180608150501-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 15:13:11 +0300
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2018 at 11:12:31AM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 10:07:01 +0800
> > Tiwei Bie <tiwei.bie@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Document the driver requirements for the VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV
> > > feature bit.
> > >
> > > Suggested-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Tiwei Bie <tiwei.bie@intel.com>
> > > Fixes: https://github.com/oasis-tcs/virtio-spec/issues/13
> > > ---
> > > v2:
> > > - Fix the commit message (MST);
> > > - Improve the wording (MST);
> > > - Drop unnecessary parts (MST);
> > >
> > > content.tex | 15 +++++++++++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/content.tex b/content.tex
> > > index be18234..f996fad 100644
> > > --- a/content.tex
> > > +++ b/content.tex
> > > @@ -5387,6 +5387,21 @@ A driver SHOULD accept VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER if it is offered.
> > > If VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER has been negotiated, a driver MUST use
> > > the barriers suitable for hardware devices.
> > >
> > > +If VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV has been negotiated, a driver MAY enable
> > > +virtual functions through the device's PCI SR-IOV capability
> > > +structure. A driver MUST NOT negotiate VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV if
> > > +the device does not have a PCI SR-IOV capability structure
> > > +or is not a PCI device. A driver MUST negotiate
> >
> > Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but why should the device offer
> > the feature in the first place if it does not support the functionality?
>
> Probably shouldn't, but what if we want to reuse the bit
> number for some non pci functionality on other transports?
> This text will allow it.
I'm not really a fan of reusing bits for different things. If we want
this, we should specify a transport-specific feature bit range. I'd
prefer simply noting that this is PCI-specific (as we do now), though.
>
> > > +VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV and complete the feature negotiation
> > > +(including checking the FEATURES_OK \field{status} bit)
> > > +before enabling virtual functions through the device's
> > > +PCI SR-IOV capability structure. After once successfully
> > > +negotiating VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV, the driver MAY enable virtual
> > > +functions through the device's PCI SR-IOV capability
> > > +structure even if the device or the system has been fully
> > > +or partially reset, and even without re-negotiating
> > > +VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV after the reset.
> >
> > So, what is the general lifetime of this feature supposed to be? As
> > written here, the driver needs to negotiate the feature once and then
> > may enable virtual functions at any time in all eternity. Is this
> > intended to accommodate hardware implementations, where some kind of
> > switch is flipped once and then the functionality is available?
> > Also, as the device will need to negotiate the feature at least once,
> > what is stopping it from negotiating it again in the future? Is this
> > wording intended to allow the driver to simply use virtual functions on
> > resume etc. prior to feature negotiation?
>
> Yes - it's to accomodate how guest OS-es treat SRIOV capability
> on resume, restoring it before they start talking to the driver.
>
> Maybe we need a non conformance section explaining about SR-IOV.
> Another thing to explain is that all VFs are assumed to be same as the
> PF. Also I do not think we can support legacy or transitional VFs.
Yes, I think so.
>
> > It might be helpful to add some explanatory text outside of the
> > conformance statement so we don't stumble over this in the future.
>
> Exactly. But in fact same applies to other features we just
> do not say this explicitly anywhere. For exactly things won't
> work well if you reset device to recover from error
> and suddenly it doesn't negotiate the feature.
But "please renegotiate the same feature set" is different from "you
can use this even before renegotiating", no?
>
>
> So I suspect we want to add somewhere in the general section:
>
>
> If device has successfully negotiated a set of features at least once
> (by setting the FEATURES_OK \field{status} bit) then it SHOULD NOT
> fail re-negotiation of the same set of features after a device
> or system reset. Failure to do so would interfere with resume
> from suspend and error recovery.
>
> would this address your comment?
This is a good idea, and I already reviewed Tiwei's other patch :)
We still need to note that reset doesn't clear this feature explicitly,
though, as this is only SHOULD NOT.
>
> > > +
> > > \devicenormative{\section}{Reserved Feature Bits}{Reserved Feature Bits}
> > >
> > > A device MUST offer VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1. A device MAY fail to operate further
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-06-08 12:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-06-08 2:07 [virtio-dev] [PATCH v2] content: document SR-IOV driver requirements Tiwei Bie
2018-06-08 9:12 ` [virtio-dev] " Cornelia Huck
2018-06-08 11:14 ` Tiwei Bie
2018-06-08 12:38 ` Cornelia Huck
2018-06-08 12:46 ` Tiwei Bie
2018-06-08 12:13 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2018-06-08 12:36 ` Cornelia Huck [this message]
2018-06-08 12:52 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
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=20180608143624.6ebe94c0.cohuck@redhat.com \
--to=cohuck@redhat.com \
--cc=alexander.h.duyck@intel.com \
--cc=cunming.liang@intel.com \
--cc=dan.daly@intel.com \
--cc=mark.d.rustad@intel.com \
--cc=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=stefanha@redhat.com \
--cc=tiwei.bie@intel.com \
--cc=virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org \
--cc=zhihong.wang@intel.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