On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 01:13:14PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: >On Tue, 2015-02-10 at 09:35 +0800, Wei Yang wrote: >> >Don't we want pcibios_sriov_enable() to be able to crop the number >> >of VFs or do we think any resource limits have been applied >> >already ? >> >> The second parameter "initial" is the number of VFs will be enabled. >> Arch >> dependent function will check the resources for these number of VFs. >> >> Do I catch your question correctly? > >I was wondering if the number of resource that can be enabled is >smaller, should the arch function be able to return that smaller >number and we would still enable that number ? > >Ie, have the arch function be able to "update" the value of >"initial" (by passing it by pointer for example). This would increase the time to enable sriov and block others driver to enable sriov. On powernv platform, those resources needed are M64 BAR and PE numbers. Currently they are acquired separately. We have a lock to protect those resources respectively. If we want to apply the logic you mentioned, we need to have a "bigger" lock to protect both of them and try different values, since at the same time, other driver may want to enable their sriov too. We have to protect this contention. Another example is PF has two IOV BAR but just one M64 BAR left in system. In this case, no matter how many VFs want to enable, it will fail. > >Cheers, >Ben. > > >-- >To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in >the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- Richard Yang Help you, Help me -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
