On Mon, 1 Feb 2021 11:40:45 +0200 Max Gurtovoy <mgurtovoy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2/1/2021 6:32 AM, Alex Williamson wrote: > > On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 20:46:40 +0200 > > Max Gurtovoy <mgurtovoy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On 1/28/2021 11:02 PM, Alex Williamson wrote: > >>> On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 17:29:30 +0100 > >>> Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 15:27:43 +0200 > >>>> Max Gurtovoy <mgurtovoy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>> On 1/26/2021 5:34 AM, Alex Williamson wrote: > >>>>>> On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 20:45:22 -0400 > >>>>>> Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 04:31:51PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > >>>>>>>> extensions potentially break vendor drivers, etc. We're only even hand > >>>>>>>> waving that existing device specific support could be farmed out to new > >>>>>>>> device specific drivers without even going to the effort to prove that. > >>>>>>> This is a RFC, not a complete patch series. The RFC is to get feedback > >>>>>>> on the general design before everyone comits alot of resources and > >>>>>>> positions get dug in. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Do you really think the existing device specific support would be a > >>>>>>> problem to lift? It already looks pretty clean with the > >>>>>>> vfio_pci_regops, looks easy enough to lift to the parent. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> So far the TODOs rather mask the dirty little secrets of the > >>>>>>>> extension rather than showing how a vendor derived driver needs to > >>>>>>>> root around in struct vfio_pci_device to do something useful, so > >>>>>>>> probably porting actual device specific support rather than further > >>>>>>>> hand waving would be more helpful. > >>>>>>> It would be helpful to get actual feedback on the high level design - > >>>>>>> someting like this was already tried in May and didn't go anywhere - > >>>>>>> are you surprised that we are reluctant to commit alot of resources > >>>>>>> doing a complete job just to have it go nowhere again? > >>>>>> That's not really what I'm getting from your feedback, indicating > >>>>>> vfio-pci is essentially done, the mlx stub driver should be enough to > >>>>>> see the direction, and additional concerns can be handled with TODO > >>>>>> comments. Sorry if this is not construed as actual feedback, I think > >>>>>> both Connie and I are making an effort to understand this and being > >>>>>> hampered by lack of a clear api or a vendor driver that's anything more > >>>>>> than vfio-pci plus an aux bus interface. Thanks, > >>>>> I think I got the main idea and I'll try to summarize it: > >>>>> > >>>>> The separation to vfio-pci.ko and vfio-pci-core.ko is acceptable, and we > >>>>> do need it to be able to create vendor-vfio-pci.ko driver in the future > >>>>> to include vendor special souse inside. > >>>> One other thing I'd like to bring up: What needs to be done in > >>>> userspace? Does a userspace driver like QEMU need changes to actually > >>>> exploit this? Does management software like libvirt need to be involved > >>>> in decision making, or does it just need to provide the knobs to make > >>>> the driver configurable? > >>> I'm still pretty nervous about the userspace aspect of this as well. > >>> QEMU and other actual vfio drivers are probably the least affected, > >>> at least for QEMU, it'll happily open any device that has a pointer to > >>> an IOMMU group that's reflected as a vfio group device. Tools like > >>> libvirt, on the other hand, actually do driver binding and we need to > >>> consider how they make driver decisions. Jason suggested that the > >>> vfio-pci driver ought to be only spec compliant behavior, which sounds > >>> like some deprecation process of splitting out the IGD, NVLink, zpci, > >>> etc. features into sub-drivers and eventually removing that device > >>> specific support from vfio-pci. Would we expect libvirt to know, "this > >>> is an 8086 graphics device, try to bind it to vfio-pci-igd" or "uname > >>> -m says we're running on s390, try to bind it to vfio-zpci"? Maybe we > >>> expect derived drivers to only bind to devices they recognize, so > >>> libvirt could blindly try a whole chain of drivers, ending in vfio-pci. > >>> Obviously if we have competing drivers that support the same device in > >>> different ways, that quickly falls apart. > >> I think we can leave common arch specific stuff, such as s390 (IIUC) in > >> the core driver. And only create vfio_pci drivers for > >> vendor/device/subvendor specific stuff. > > So on one hand you're telling us that the design principles here can be > > applied to various other device/platform specific support, but on the > > other you're saying, but don't do that... > > I guess I was looking at nvlink2 as device specific. It's device specific w/ platform dependencies as I see it. > But let's update the nvlink2, s390 and IGD a bit: > > 1. s390 - config VFIO_PCI_ZDEV rename to config VFIO_PCI_S390 (it will > include all needed tweeks for S390) > > 2. nvlink2 - config VFIO_PCI_NVLINK2 rename to config VFIO_PCI_P9 (it > will include all needed tweeks for P9) > > 3. igd - config VFIO_PCI_IGD rename to config VFIO_PCI_X86 (it will > include all needed tweeks for X86) > > All the 3 stays in the vfio-pci-core.ko since we might need S390 stuff > if we plug Network adapter from vendor-A or NVMe adapter from vendor-B > for example. This is platform specific and we don't want to duplicate it > in each vendor driver. > > Same for P9 (and nvlink2 is only a special case in there) and X86. I'm not a fan of this, you're essentially avoiding the issue by turning everything into an architecture specific version of the driver. That takes us down a path where everything gets added to vfio-pci-core with a bunch of Kconfig switches, which seems to be exactly the opposite direction of creating a core module as a library for derived device and/or platform specific modules. This also appears to be the opposite of Jason's suggestion that vfio-pci become a pure PCI spec module without various device/vendor quirks. > >> Also, the competing drivers issue can also happen today, right ? after > >> adding new_id to vfio_pci I don't know how linux will behave if we'll > >> plug new device with same id to the system. which driver will probe it ? > > new_id is non-deterministic, that's why we have driver_override. > > I'm not sure I understand how driver_override help in the competition ? > > it's only enforce driver binding to a device. > > if we have device AAA0 that is driven by aaa.ko and we add AAA as new_id > to vfio_pci and afterwards we plug AAA1 that is also driven by aaa.ko > and can be driven by vfio_pci.ko. what will happen ? will it be the > wanted behavior always ? I think with AAA vs AAA0 and AAA1 you're suggesting a wildcard in new_id where both the aaa.ko driver and vfio-pci.ko (once the wildcard is added) could bind to the device. At that point, which driver gets first shot at a compatible device depends on the driver load order, ie. if the aaa.ko module was loaded before vfio-pci.ko, it might win. If an event happens that causes the competing driver to be loaded between setting a new_id and binding the device to the driver, that competing module load could claim the device instead. driver_override helps by allowing the user to define that a device will match a driver rather than a driver matching a device. The user can write a driver name to the driver_override of the device such that that device can only be bound to the specified driver. > We will have a competition in any case in the current linux design. Only > now we add new players to the competition. > > how does libvirt use driver_override ? Libvirt would write "vfio-pci" to the driver_override attribute for a device such that when an unbind and drivers_probe occurs, that device can only be bound to vfio-pci. There is no longer a race with another driver nor is there non-determinism based on module load order. > and why will it change in case of vendor specific vfio-pci driver ? Libvirt needs to know *what* driver to set as the vendor_override, so if we had vfio-pci, vfio-pci-zdev, vfio-zpci-ism, vfio-pci-igd, vfio-pci-ppc-nvlink, etc., how does libvirt decide which driver it should use? The drivers themselves cannot populate their match ids or else we get into the problem above where for example vfio-pci-igd could possibly claim the Intel graphics device before i915 depending on the module load order, which would be a support issue. > >> I don't really afraid of competing drivers since we can ask from vendor > >> vfio pci_drivers to add vendor_id, device_id, subsystem_vendor and > >> subsystem_device so we won't have this problem. I don't think that there > >> will be 2 drivers that drive the same device with these 4 ids. > >> > >> Userspace tool can have a map of ids to drivers and bind the device to > >> the right vfio-pci vendor driver if it has one. if not, bind to vfio_pci.ko. > > As I've outlined, the support is not really per device, there might be > > a preferred default driver for the platform, ex. s390. > > > >>> Libvirt could also expand its available driver models for the user to > >>> specify a variant, I'd support that for overriding a choice that libvirt > >>> might make otherwise, but forcing the user to know this information is > >>> just passing the buck. > >> We can add a code to libvirt as mentioned above. > > That's rather the question here, what is that algorithm by which a > > userspace tool such as libvirt would determine the optimal driver for a > > device? > > If exist, the optimal driver is the vendor driver according to mapping > of device_id + vendor_id + subsystem_device + subsystem_vendor to > vendor-vfio-pci.ko. And how is that mapping done? The only sane way would be depmod, but that implies that vendor-vfio-pci.ko fills the ids table for that device, which can only happen for devices that have no competing host driver. For example, how would Intel go about creating their vendor vfio-pci module that can bind to and xl710 VF that wouldn't create competition and non-determinism in module loading vs the existing iavf.ko module? This only works with your aux bus based driver, but that's also the only vfio-pci derived driver proposed that can take advantage of that approach. > If not, bind to vfio-pci.ko. > > Platform specific stuff will be handled in vfio-pci-core.ko and not in a > vendor driver. vendor drivers are for PCI devices and not platform tweeks. I don't think that's the correct, or a sustainable approach. vfio-pci will necessarily make use of platform access functions, but trying to loop in devices that have platform dependencies as platform extensions of vfio-pci-core rather than vendor extensions for a device seems wrong to me. > >>> Some derived drivers could probably actually include device IDs rather > >>> than only relying on dynamic ids, but then we get into the problem that > >>> we're competing with native host driver for a device. The aux bus > >>> example here is essentially the least troublesome variation since it > >>> works in conjunction with the native host driver rather than replacing > >>> it. Thanks, > >> same competition after we add new_id to vfio_pci, right ? > > new_id is already superseded by driver_override to avoid the ambiguity, > > but to which driver does a userspace tool like libvirt define as the > > ultimate target driver for a device and how? > > it will have a lookup table as mentioned above. So the expectation is that each user application that manages binding devices to vfio-pci derived drivers will have a lookup table that's manually managed to provide an optimal device to driver mapping? That's terrible. Thanks, Alex
