[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v2 00/15] hw/nvme: SR-IOV with Virtualization Enhancements

From: Klaus Jensen
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/15] hw/nvme: SR-IOV with Virtualization Enhancements
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 09:03:06 +0100

Hi Lukasz,

I've been through this. I have a couple of review comments, but overall
looks good for inclusion in nvme-next. Would be nice to get this in
early in the cycle so it can mature there for 7.0.

I'd like that we mark this support experimental, so we can easily do
some changes to how parameters work since I'm not sure we completely
agree on that yet.

By the way, in the future, please add me and Keith as CCs on the entire
series so we get CC'ed on replies to the cover-letter ;)

On Nov 16 16:34, Łukasz Gieryk wrote:
> This is the updated version of SR-IOV support for the NVMe device.
> Changes since v1:
>  - Dropped the "pcie: Set default and supported MaxReadReq to 512" patch.
>    The original author agrees it may be no longer needed for recent
>    kernels.
>  - Dropped the "pcie: Add callback preceding SR-IOV VFs update" patch.
>    A customized pc->config_write callback is used instead.
>  - Split the "hw/nvme: Calculate BAR attributes in a function” patch into
>    cleanup and update parts.
>  - Reworked the configuration options related to SR-IOV.
>  - Fixed nvme_update_msixcap_ts() for platform without MSIX support.
>  - Updated handling of SUBSYS_SLOT_RSVD values in nvme_subsys_ctrl().
>  - Updated error codes returned from the Virtualization Management
>    command (DNR is set).
>  - Updated typedef/enum names mismatch.
>  - Few other minor tweaks and improvements.
> List of known gaps and nice-to-haves:
> 1) Interaction of secondary controllers with namespaces is not 100%
> following the spec
> The limitation: VF has to be visible on the PCI bus first, and only then
> such VF can have a namespace attached.

Looking at the spec I'm not even sure what the expected behavior is
supposed to be, can you elaborate? I rebased this on latest, and with
Hannes changes, shared namespaces will be attached by default, which
seems to be reasonable.

> The problem is that the mapping between controller and attached
> namespaces is stored in the NvmeCtrl object, and unrealized VF doesn’t
> have this object allocated. There are multiple ways to address the
> issue, but none of those we’ve considered so far is elegant. The fact,
> that the namespace-related code area is busy (pending patches, some
> rework?), doesn’t help either.
> 2) VFs report and support the same features as the parent PF
> Due to security reasons, user of a VF should be not allowed to interact
> with other VFs. Essentially, VFs should not announce and support:
> Namespace Management, Attachment, corresponding Identify commands, and
> maybe other features as well.

This can be relatively easily fixed I think. I have a patch that already
does this for Administrative controller types and it should be
applicable here as well. I can follow up with that.

> 3) PMR and CMB must be disabled when SR-IOV is active
> The main concern is whether PMR/CMB should be even implemented for a
> device that supports SR-IOV. If the answer is yes, then another question
> arises: how the feature should behave? Simulation of different devices
> may require different implementation.
> It's too early to get into such details, so we’ve decided to disallow
> both features altogether if SR-IOV is enabled.

Reasonable enough for now.

> 4) The Private Resources Mode
> The NVMe Spec defines Flexible Resources as an optional feature. VFs can
> alternatively support a fixed number of queues/interrupts.
> This SR-IOV implementation supports Flexible Resources with the
> Virtualization Management command, and a fallback to Private Resources
> is not available. Support for such fallback, if there’s demand, can be
> implemented later.


> 5) Support for Namespace Management command
> Device with virtualization enhancements must support the Namespace
> Management command. The command is not absolutely necessary to use
> SR-IOV, but for a more complete set of features you may want to
> cherry-pick this patch:
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2021-08/msg03107.html
> together with this fix:
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2021-10/msg06734.html

I think we can live with just Namespace Attachment suppoort for now,
until the above patches are accepted.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]