On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 11:16:21 +0800
Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 09:22:34PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 08:39:22 +0800
> > Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:36:52AM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 10:16:28 +0100
> > > > Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 05:01:51PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > > On 2020/8/18 下午4:55, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:24:30AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 2020/8/14 下午1:16, Yan Zhao wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 12:24:50PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 2020/8/10 下午3:46, Yan Zhao wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > we actually can also retrieve the same information through sysfs, .e.g
> > > > > >
> > > > > > |- [path to device]
> > > > > > |--- migration
> > > > > > | |--- self
> > > > > > | | |---device_api
> > > > > > | | |---mdev_type
> > > > > > | | |---software_version
> > > > > > | | |---device_id
> > > > > > | | |---aggregator
> > > > > > | |--- compatible
> > > > > > | | |---device_api
> > > > > > | | |---mdev_type
> > > > > > | | |---software_version
> > > > > > | | |---device_id
> > > > > > | | |---aggregator
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes but:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - You need one file per attribute (one syscall for one attribute)
> > > > > > - Attribute is coupled with kobject
> > > >
> > > > Is that really that bad? You have the device with an embedded kobject
> > > > anyway, and you can just put things into an attribute group?
> > > >
> > > > [Also, I think that self/compatible split in the example makes things
> > > > needlessly complex. Shouldn't semantic versioning and matching already
> > > > cover nearly everything? I would expect very few cases that are more
> > > > complex than that. Maybe the aggregation stuff, but I don't think we
> > > > need that self/compatible split for that, either.]
> > > Hi Cornelia,
> > >
> > > The reason I want to declare compatible list of attributes is that
> > > sometimes it's not a simple 1:1 matching of source attributes and target attributes
> > > as I demonstrated below,
> > > source mdev of (mdev_type i915-GVTg_V5_2 + aggregator 1) is compatible to
> > > target mdev of (mdev_type i915-GVTg_V5_4 + aggregator 2),
> > > (mdev_type i915-GVTg_V5_8 + aggregator 4)
> > >
> > > and aggragator may be just one of such examples that 1:1 matching does not
> > > fit.
> >
> > If you're suggesting that we need a new 'compatible' set for every
> > aggregation, haven't we lost the purpose of aggregation? For example,
> > rather than having N mdev types to represent all the possible
> > aggregation values, we have a single mdev type with N compatible
> > migration entries, one for each possible aggregation value. BTW, how do
> > we have multiple compatible directories? compatible0001,
> > compatible0002? Thanks,
> >
> do you think the bin_attribute I proposed yesterday good?
> Then we can have a single compatible with a variable in the mdev_type and
> aggregator.
>
> mdev_type=i915-GVTg_V5_{val1:int:2,4,8}
> aggregator={val1}/2
I'm not really a fan of binary attributes other than in cases where we
have some kind of binary format to begin with.
IIUC, we basically have:
- different partitioning (expressed in the mdev_type)
- different number of partitions (expressed via the aggregator)
- devices being compatible if the partitioning:aggregator ratio is the
same
(The multiple mdev_type variants seem to come from avoiding extra
creation parameters, IIRC?)
Would it be enough to export
base_type=i915-GVTg_V5
aggregation_ratio=<integer>
to express the various combinations that are compatible without the
need for multiple sets of attributes?
