On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 02:38:01PM -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote: > On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 07:26:14AM -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote: > >> On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 8:48 PM, Mark Rustad <mark.d.rustad@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > Hardware-realized virtio_pci devices can implement SR-IOV, so this > >> > patch enables its use. The device in question is an upcoming Intel > >> > NIC that implements both a virtio_net PF and virtio_net VFs. These > >> > are hardware realizations of what has been up to now been a software > >> > interface. > >> > > >> > The device in question has the following 4-part PCI IDs: > >> > > >> > PF: vendor: 1af4 device: 1041 subvendor: 8086 subdevice: 15fe > >> > VF: vendor: 1af4 device: 1041 subvendor: 8086 subdevice: 05fe > >> > > >> > The patch needs no check for device ID, because the callback will > >> > never be made for devices that do not assert the capability or > >> > when run on a platform incapable of SR-IOV. > >> > > >> > One reason for this patch is because the hardware requires the > >> > vendor ID of a VF to be the same as the vendor ID of the PF that > >> > created it. So it seemed logical to simply have a fully-functioning > >> > virtio_net PF create the VFs. This patch makes that possible. > >> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Mark Rustad <mark.d.rustad@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > Reviewed-by: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> Mark, > >> > >> In the future please don't put my "Reviewed-by" on a patch that I > >> haven't reviewed. I believe I reviewed one of the earlier patches, but > >> I hadn't reviewed this version. > >> > >> Also, after thinking about it over the weekend we may want to look at > >> just coming up with a truly "generic" solution that is applied to > >> SR-IOV capable devices that don't have a SR-IOV capable driver loaded > >> on them. That would allow us to handle the uio, vfio, pci-stub, and > >> virtio cases all in one fell swoop. I think us going though and > >> modifying one patch at a time to do this kind of thing isn't going to > >> scale. > > > > uio really can't support VFs properly - without proper IOMMU > > support any MSIs can corrupt kernel memory, and VFs are > > limited to MSIs. > > UIO wasn't being run on the VFs, it was just running the PF. I see. That's fine then. > The point > is that there have been about 4 attempts, including this one, to add > SR-IOV support to drivers that don't actually do any VF management > internally. They were just being used as a shim so that they could add > the sriov_configure function to a driver that would load on the PF. > > If we make the solution generic I think it should turn out pretty > clean. Most of the work just needs to happen in the sysfs function for > storing the value that is written to sriov_numvfs. I'm working with > Mark and a few other people now to get this addressed and I hope that > we can have a patch available shortly. > > Thanks. > > - Alex
