On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 02:55:24PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > 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 <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 <yishaih@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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". Great, sorry I missed that nuance :)
