On Tue, 11 Jan 2022 16:19:06 -0500 Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Also we could probably do the filtering incrementally. In a sense that > > at a time only so much changes, and we know that the invariant was > > preserved without that change. But that would probably end up trading > > complexity for cycles. I will trust your judgment and your tests on this > > matter. > > I am not entirely clear on what you are suggesting. I think you are > suggesting that there may not be a need to look at every APQN > assigned to the mdev when an adapter or domain is assigned or > unassigned or a queue is probed or removed. Maybe you can clarify > what you are suggesting here. Exactly. For example if we have the following assigned adapters: 1, 2, 3 domains: 1, 2, 3 and the operation we are trying to perform is assign domain 4, then it is sufficient to have a look at the queues with the APQNs (1,4), (2,4) and (3, 4). We don't have to examine all the 14 queues. When an unassign dapter is performed, there is no need to do the re-filtering, because there is nothing that can pop-back or go away. And on unassign domain is performed, then all we care about are the queues of that domain on the filtered adapters. Similarly if after that successful assign the queue (3,4) gets removed (from vfio_ap) and then added back again and probed, we only have to look at the queues (3, 1), (3, 2), (3, 3). But I'm OK with the current design of this. It is certainly conceptually simpler to say we have a master-copy and we filter that master-copy based on the very same rules every time something changes. I'm really fine either way as log as it works well. :D Regards, Halil
