On 1/28/2016 3:28 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2016-01-28 at 02:25 +0530, Kirti Wankhede wrote:
On 1/27/2016 9:30 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2016-01-27 at 13:36 +0530, Kirti Wankhede wrote:
On 1/27/2016 1:36 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2016-01-26 at 02:20 -0800, Neo Jia wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 09:45:14PM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
From: Alex Williamson [mailto:alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx]
Hi Alex, Kevin and Jike,
(Seems I shouldn't use attachment, resend it again to the list, patches are
inline at the end)
Thanks for adding me to this technical discussion, a great opportunity
for us to design together which can bring both Intel and NVIDIA vGPU solution to
KVM platform.
Instead of directly jumping to the proposal that we have been working on
recently for NVIDIA vGPU on KVM, I think it is better for me to put out couple
quick comments / thoughts regarding the existing discussions on this thread as
fundamentally I think we are solving the same problem, DMA, interrupt and MMIO.
Then we can look at what we have, hopefully we can reach some consensus soon.
Yes, and since you're creating and destroying the vgpu here, this is
where I'd expect a struct device to be created and added to an IOMMU
group. The lifecycle management should really include links between
the vGPU and physical GPU, which would be much, much easier to do with
struct devices create here rather than at the point where we start
doing vfio "stuff".
Infact to keep vfio-vgpu to be more generic, vgpu device creation and management
can be centralized and done in vfio-vgpu. That also include adding to IOMMU
group and VFIO group.
Is this really a good idea? The concept of a vgpu is not unique to
vfio, we want vfio to be a driver for a vgpu, not an integral part of
the lifecycle of a vgpu. That certainly doesn't exclude adding
infrastructure to make lifecycle management of a vgpu more consistent
between drivers, but it should be done independently of vfio. I'll go
back to the SR-IOV model, vfio is often used with SR-IOV VFs, but vfio
does not create the VF, that's done in coordination with the PF making
use of some PCI infrastructure for consistency between drivers.
It seems like we need to take more advantage of the class and driver
core support to perhaps setup a vgpu bus and class with vfio-vgpu just
being a driver for those devices.
For device passthrough or SR-IOV model, PCI devices are created by PCI
bus driver and from the probe routine each device is added in vfio group.
An SR-IOV VF is created by the PF driver using standard interfaces
provided by the PCI core. The IOMMU group for a VF is added by the
IOMMU driver when the device is created on the pci_bus_type. The probe
routine of the vfio bus driver (vfio-pci) is what adds the device into
the vfio group.
For vgpu, there should be a common module that create vgpu device, say
vgpu module, add vgpu device to an IOMMU group and then add it to vfio
group. This module can handle management of vgpus. Advantage of keeping
this module a separate module than doing device creation in vendor
modules is to have generic interface for vgpu management, for example,
files /sys/class/vgpu/vgpu_start and /sys/class/vgpu/vgpu_shudown and
vgpu driver registration interface.
But you're suggesting something very different from the SR-IOV model.
If we wanted to mimic that model, the GPU specific driver should create
the vgpu using services provided by a common interface. For instance
i915 could call a new vgpu_device_create() which creates the device,
adds it to the vgpu class, etc. That vgpu device should not be assumed
to be used with vfio though, that should happen via a separate probe
using a vfio-vgpu driver. It's that vfio bus driver that will add the
device to a vfio group.
In that case vgpu driver should provide a driver registration interface
to register vfio-vgpu driver.
struct vgpu_driver {
const char *name;
int (*probe) (struct vgpu_device *vdev);
void (*remove) (struct vgpu_device *vdev);
}
int vgpu_register_driver(struct vgpu_driver *driver)
{
...
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(vgpu_register_driver);
int vgpu_unregister_driver(struct vgpu_driver *driver)
{
...
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(vgpu_unregister_driver);
vfio-vgpu driver registers to vgpu driver. Then from
vgpu_device_create(), after creating the device it calls
vgpu_driver->probe(vgpu_device) and vfio-vgpu driver adds the device to
vfio group.
+--------------+ vgpu_register_driver()+---------------+
__init() +------------------------->+ |
| | |
+<-------------------------+ vgpu.ko |
vfio_vgpu.ko | probe()/remove() | |
| +---------+ +---------+
+--------------+ | +-------+-------+ |
| ^ |
| callback | |
| +-------+--------+ |
| |vgpu_register_device() |
| | | |
+---^-----+-----+ +-----+------+-+
| nvidia.ko | | i915.ko |
| | | |
+-----------+ +------------+
Is my understanding correct?
We have an entire driver core subsystem in Linux for the purpose of
matching devices to drivers, I don't think we should be re-inventing
that. That's why I'm suggesting that we should have infrastructure
which facilitates GPU drivers to create vGPU devices in a common way,
perhaps even placing the devices on a virtual vgpu bus, and then allow a
vfio-vgpu driver to register as a driver for devices of that bus/class
and use the existing driver callbacks. Thanks,
Alex
We will use Linux core subsystem, my point is we have to introduce vgpu
module to provide such infrastructure to GPU drivers in common way. This
module helps GPU drivers to create vGPU devices and allow vfio-vgpu
driver to register for vGPU devices.
Kirti.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
