On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 12:10:20 +0000 "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 2:39 AM > > > > On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 09:57:32 -0300 > > Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 02:06:42PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > > > > On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 16:31:56 -0300 > > > > Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 01:01:40PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > > > > > > Yes, it's not trivial, but Jason is now proposing that we consider > > > > > > mixing groups, cdevs, and multiple iommufd_ctxs as invalid. I think > > > > > > this means that regardless of which device calls INFO, there's only one > > > > > > answer (assuming same set of devices opened, all cdev, all within same > > > > > > iommufd_ctx). Based on what I explained about my understanding of INFO2 > > > > > > and Jason agreed to, I think the output would be: > > > > > > > > > > > > flags: NOT_RESETABLE | DEV_ID > > > > > > { > > > > > > { valid devA-id, devA-BDF }, > > > > > > { valid devC-id, devC-BDF }, > > > > > > { valid devD-id, devD-BDF }, > > > > > > { invalid dev-id, devE-BDF }, > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > Here devB gets dropped because the kernel understands that devB is > > > > > > unopened, affected, and owned. It's therefore not a blocker for > > > > > > hot-reset. > > > > > > > > > > I don't think we want to drop anything because it makes the API > > > > > ill suited for the debugging purpose. > > > > > > > > > > devb should be returned with an invalid dev_id if I understand your > > > > > example. Maybe it should return with -1 as the dev_id instead of 0, to > > > > > make the debugging a bit better. > > > > > > > > > > Userspace should look at only NOT_RESETTABLE to determine if it > > > > > proceeds or not, and it should use the valid dev_id list to iterate > > > > > over the devices it has open to do the config stuff. > > > > > > > > If an affected device is owned, not opened, and not interfering with > > > > the reset, what is it adding to the API to report it for debugging > > > > purposes? > > > > > > It lets it print the entire group of devices, this is the only way > > > something can learn the actual list of all BDFs affected. > > > > If we do so, userspace must be able to differentiate which devices are > > blocking, which necessitates at least a bi-modal invalid dev-id. > > > > > dev_id can just return 0, we don't need a complex bitmap. Userspace > > > looks at the flag, if !NOT_RESETABLE then it ignores dev_id=0. > > > > I'm having trouble with a succinct definition of dev-id == 0, is it "A > > device affected by the hot-reset reset, which does not directly > > contribute to the availability of the hot-reset, ex. an unopened device > > within the same IOMMU group as an opened device (ie. this is not the > > device responsible if hot-reset is unavailable). > > Hide this device in the list looks fine to me. But the calling user should > not do any new device open before finishing hot-reset. Otherwise, user may > miss a device that needs to do pre/post reset. I think this requirement is > acceptable. Is it? I think Kevin and Jason are leaning towards reporting the entire dev-set. The INFO ioctl has always been a point-in-time reading, no guarantees are made if the host or user configuration is changed. Nothing changes in that respect. > > Whereas dev-id < 0 > > (== -1) is an affected device which prevents hot-reset, ex. an un-owned > > device, device configured within a different iommufd_ctx, or device > > opened outside of the vfio cdev API." Is that about right? Thanks, > > Do you mean to have separate err-code for the three possibilities? As > the devid is generated by iommufd and it is u32. I'm not sure if we can > have such err-code definition without reserving some ids in iommufd. Yes, if we're going to report the full dev-set, I think we need at least two unique error codes or else the user has no way to determine the subset of invalid dev-ids which block the reset. I think Jason is proposing the set of valid dev-ids are >0, a dev-id of zero indicates some form of non-blocking, while <0 (or maybe specifically -1) indicates a blocking device. I was trying to get consensus on a formal definition of each of those error codes in my previous reply. Thanks, Alex