On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 10:44:17AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 03:37:13PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 09:05:17AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 11:40:47AM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > > > - Will had unanswered questions in another part of the thread: > > > > > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231013092954.GB13524@willie-the-truck/ > > > > > > > > > > Can someone please help concluding it? > > > > > > > > Is this about reclaiming the device? I think we concluded that we can't > > > > generalise this beyond PCIe, though not sure there was any formal > > > > statement to that thread. The other point Will had was around stating > > > > in the commit message why we only relax this to Normal NC. I haven't > > > > checked the commit message yet, it needs careful reading ;). > > > > > > Not quite, we said reclaiming is VFIO's problem and if VFIO can't > > > reliably reclaim a device it shouldn't create it in the first place. > > > > I think that as far as device reclaiming was concerned the question > > posed was related to memory attributes of transactions for guest > > mappings and the related grouping/ordering with device reset MMIO > > transactions - it was not (or wasn't only) about error containment. > > Yes. It is VFIO that issues the reset, it is VFIO that must provide > the ordering under the assumption that NORMAL_NC was used. And does it? Because VFIO so far only assumes Device-nGnRnE. Do we need to address this first before attempting to change KVM? Sorry, just questions, trying to clear the roadblocks. -- Catalin
