Re: [PATCH 12/15] hw/nvme: Initialize capability structures for primary/secondary controllers

[Klaus Jensen]

On Nov  8 14:57, Łukasz Gieryk wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 08, 2021 at 09:25:58AM +0100, Klaus Jensen wrote:
> > On Nov  5 15:04, Łukasz Gieryk wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 05, 2021 at 09:46:28AM +0100, Łukasz Gieryk wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Nov 04, 2021 at 04:48:43PM +0100, Łukasz Gieryk wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Nov 03, 2021 at 01:07:31PM +0100, Klaus Jensen wrote:
> > > > > > On Oct  7 18:24, Lukasz Maniak wrote:
> > > > > > > From: Łukasz Gieryk <lukasz.gieryk@linux.intel.com>
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > With two new properties (sriov_max_vi_per_vf, 
> > > > > > > sriov_max_vq_per_vf) one
> > > > > > > can configure the maximum number of virtual queues and interrupts
> > > > > > > assignable to a single virtual device. The primary and secondary
> > > > > > > controller capability structures are initialized accordingly.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Since the number of available queues (interrupts) now varies 
> > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > VF/PF, BAR size calculation is also adjusted.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > While this patch allows configuring the VQFRSM and VIFRSM fields, it
> > > > > > implicitly sets VQFRT and VIFRT (i.e. by setting them to the 
> > > > > > product of
> > > > > > sriov_max_vi_pervf and max_vfs). Which is just setting it to an 
> > > > > > upper
> > > > > > bound and this removes a testable case for host software (e.g.
> > > > > > requesting more flexible resources than what is currently 
> > > > > > available).
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > This patch also requires that these parameters are set if 
> > > > > > sriov_max_vfs
> > > > > > is. I think we can provide better defaults.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Originally I considered more params, but ended up coding the simplest,
> > > > > user-friendly solution, because I did not like the mess with so many
> > > > > parameters, and the flexibility wasn't needed for my use cases. But I 
> > > > > do
> > > > > agree: others may need the flexibility. Case (FRT < max_vfs * FRSM) is
> > > > > valid and resembles an actual device.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > How about,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 1. if only sriov_max_vfs is set, then all VFs get private resources
> > > > > >    equal to max_ioqpairs. Like before this patch. This limits the 
> > > > > > number
> > > > > >    of parameters required to get a basic setup going.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 2. if sriov_v{q,i}_private is set (I suggested this parameter in 
> > > > > > patch
> > > > > >    10), the difference between that and max_ioqpairs become flexible
> > > > > >    resources. Also, I'd be just fine with having 
> > > > > > sriov_v{q,i}_flexible
> > > > > >    instead and just make the difference become private resources.
> > > > > >    Potato/potato.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >    a. in the absence of sriov_max_v{q,i}_per_vf, set them to the 
> > > > > > number
> > > > > >       of calculated flexible resources.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > This probably smells a bit like bikeshedding, but I think this gives
> > > > > > more flexibility and better defaults, which helps with verifying 
> > > > > > host
> > > > > > software.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > If we can't agree on this now, I suggest we could go ahead and 
> > > > > > merge the
> > > > > > base functionality (i.e. private resources only) and ruminate some 
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > about these parameters.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The problem is that the spec allows VFs to support either only 
> > > > > private,
> > > > > or only flexible resources.
> > > > > 
> > > > > At this point I have to admit, that since my use cases for
> > > > > QEMU/Nvme/SRIOV require flexible resources, I haven’t paid much
> > > > > attention to the case with VFs having private resources. So this 
> > > > > SR/IOV
> > > > > implementation doesn’t even support such case (max_vX_per_vf != 0).
> > > > > 
> > > > > Let me summarize the possible config space, and how the current
> > > > > parameters (could) map to these (interrupt-related ones omitted):
> > > > > 
> > > > > Flexible resources not supported (not implemented):
> > > > >  - Private resources for PF     = max_ioqpairs
> > > > >  - Private resources per VF     = ?
> > > > >  - (error if flexible resources are configured)
> > > > > 
> > > > > With flexible resources:
> > > > >  - VQPRT, private resources for PF      = max_ioqpairs
> > > > >  - VQFRT, total flexible resources      = max_vq_per_vf * num_vfs
> > > > >  - VQFRSM, maximum assignable per VF    = max_vq_per_vf
> > > > >  - VQGRAN, granularity                  = #define constant
> > > > >  - (error if private resources per VF are configured)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Since I don’t want to misunderstand your suggestion: could you 
> > > > > provide a
> > > > > similar map with your parameters, formulas, and explain how to 
> > > > > determine
> > > > > if flexible resources are active? I want to be sure we are on the
> > > > > same page.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I’ve just re-read through my email and decided that some bits need
> > > > clarification.
> > > > 
> > > > This implementation supports the “Flexible”-resources-only flavor of
> > > > SR/IOV, while the “Private” also could be supported. Some effort is
> > > > required to support both, and I cannot afford that (at least I cannot
> > > > commit today, neither the other Lukasz).
> > > > 
> > > > While I’m ready to rework the Flexible config and prepare it to be
> > > > extended later to handle the Private variant, the 2nd version of these
> > > > patches will still support the Flexible flavor only.
> > > > 
> > > > I will include appropriate TODO/open in the next cover letter.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > The summary of my thoughts, so far:
> > > - I'm going to introduce sriov_v{q,i}_flexible and better defaults,
> > >   according to your suggestion (as far as I understand your intentions,
> > >   please correct me if I've missed something).
> > > - The Private SR/IOV flavor, if it's ever implemented, could introduce
> > >   sriov_vq_private_per_vf.
> > > - The updated formulas are listed below.
> > > 
> > > Flexible resources not supported (not implemented):
> > >  - Private resources for PF     = max_ioqpairs
> > >  - Private resources per VF     = sriov_vq_private_per_vf
> > 
> > I would just keep it simple and say, if sriov_v{q,i}_flexible is not
> > set, then each VF gets max_ioqpairs private resources.
> > 
> 
> Since you did request more tuning knobs for the Flexible variant, the
> Private one should follow that and allow full configuration. A device
> where PF.priv=64 and each VF.priv=4 makes sense, and I couldn’t
> configure it if sriov_v{q,i}_flexible=0 enabled the Private mode.
> 

It was just to simplify, I am just fine with having
`sriov_vq_private_per_vf` :)

> > >  - (error if sriov_vq_flexible is set)
> > > 
> > > With flexible resources:
> > >  - VQPRT, private resources for PF      = max_ioqpairs - sriov_vq_flexible
> > >  - VQFRT, total flexible resources      = sriov_vq_flexible (if set, or)
> > >                                           VQPRT * num_vfs
> > >  - VQFRSM, maximum assignable per VF    = sriov_max_vq_per_vf (if set, or)
> > >                                           VQPRT
> > 
> > You mean VQFRT here, right?
> > 
> 
> VQPRT is right, and – in my opinion – makes a better default than VQFRT.
> 
> E.g., configuring a device:
> 
> (max_vfs=32, PF.priv=VQPRT=X, PF.flex_total=VQFRT=256)
> 
> as (num_vfs=1, VF0.flex=256) doesn’t make much sense. Virtualization is
> not needed in such case, and user should probably use PF directly. On
> the other hand, VQPRT is probably tuned to offer most (if not all) of
> the performance and functionality; thus serves as a sane default.
> 

Alright.

> > >  - VQGRAN, granularity                  = #define constant
> > 
> > Yeah, 1 seems pretty reasonable here.
> > 
> > >  - (error if sriov_vq_private_per_vf is set)
> > > 
> > > Is this version acceptable?
> > > 
> > 
> > Sounds good to me. The only one I am not too happy about is the default
> > of VQPRT * num_vfs. (i.e. max_ioqpairs * num_vfs) when vq_flexible is
> > not set. I think this is the case where we should default to private
> > resources. If you don't want to work with private resources right now,
> > can we instead have it bug out and complain that sriov_vq_flexible must
> > be set? We can then later lift that restriction and implement private
> > resources.
> 
> I would prefer reserving sriov_v{q,i}_flexible=0 for now. That's my current
> plan for V2.
> 

Alright.

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature