On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 06:53:16PM -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote: > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 3:21 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 01:49:24PM -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote: > > > > We don't need to invent new locks and new complexity for something > > > > that is trivially solved already. > > > > > > I am not wanting a new lock. What I am wanting is a way to mark the VF > > > as being stale/offline while we are performing the update. With that > > > we would be able to apply similar logic to any changes in the future. > > > > I think we should hold off doing this until someone comes up with HW > > that needs it. The response time here is microseconds, it is not worth > > any complexity > > I disagree. Take a look at section 8.5.3 in the NVMe document that was > linked to earlier: > https://nvmexpress.org/wp-content/uploads/NVM-Express-1_4a-2020.03.09-Ratified.pdf > > This is exactly what they are doing and I think it makes a ton of > sense. Basically the VF has to be taken "offline" before you are AFAIK this is internal to the NVMe command protocol, not something we can expose generically to the OS. mlx5 has no protocol to "offline" an already running VF, for instance. The way Leon has it arranged that online/offline scheme has no relevance because there is no driver or guest attached to the VF to see the online/offline transition. I wonder if people actually do offline a NVMe VF from a hypervisor? Seems pretty weird. > Another way to think of this is that we are essentially pulling a > device back after we have already allocated the VFs and we are > reconfiguring it before pushing it back out for usage. Having a flag > that we could set on the VF device to say it is "under > construction"/modification/"not ready for use" would be quite useful I > would think. Well, yes, the whole SRIOV VF lifecycle is a pretty bad fit for the modern world. I'd rather not see a half-job on a lifecycle model by hacking in random flags. It needs a proper comprehensive design. Jason
