On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 12:44 PM Burakov, Anatoly <anatoly.bura...@intel.com> wrote:
> On 04-Jul-19 10:18 AM, David Marchand wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 12:45 PM Burakov, Anatoly > > <anatoly.bura...@intel.com <mailto:anatoly.bura...@intel.com>> wrote: > > > > On 14-Jun-19 10:39 AM, David Marchand wrote: > > > From: Ben Walker <benjamin.wal...@intel.com > > <mailto:benjamin.wal...@intel.com>> > > > > > > When selecting the preferred IOVA mode of the pci bus, the current > > > heuristic ("are devices bound?", "are devices bound to UIO?", > > "are pmd > > > drivers supporting IOVA as VA?" etc..) should honor the device > > > white/blacklist so that an unwanted device does not impact the > > decision. > > > > > > There is no reason to consider a device which has no driver > > available. > > > > > > This applies to all OS, so implements this in common code then > call a > > > OS specific callback. > > > > > > On Linux side: > > > - the VFIO special considerations should be evaluated only if VFIO > > > support is built, > > > - there is no strong requirement on using VA rather than PA if a > > driver > > > supports VA, so defaulting to DC in such a case. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ben Walker <benjamin.wal...@intel.com > > <mailto:benjamin.wal...@intel.com>> > > > Signed-off-by: David Marchand <david.march...@redhat.com > > <mailto:david.march...@redhat.com>> > > > --- > > > > <snip> > > > > > + const struct rte_pci_device *pdev) > > > { > > > - struct rte_pci_device *dev = NULL; > > > - struct rte_pci_driver *drv = NULL; > > > + enum rte_iova_mode iova_mode = RTE_IOVA_DC; > > > + static int iommu_no_va = -1; > > > > > > - FOREACH_DRIVER_ON_PCIBUS(drv) { > > > - FOREACH_DEVICE_ON_PCIBUS(dev) { > > > - if (!rte_pci_match(drv, dev)) > > > - continue; > > > - /* > > > - * just one PCI device needs to be checked > > out because > > > - * the IOMMU hardware is the same for all > > of them. > > > - */ > > > - return pci_one_device_iommu_support_va(dev); > > > + switch (pdev->kdrv) { > > > + case RTE_KDRV_VFIO: { > > > +#ifdef VFIO_PRESENT > > > + static int is_vfio_noiommu_enabled = -1; > > > + > > > + if (is_vfio_noiommu_enabled == -1) { > > > + if (rte_vfio_noiommu_is_enabled() == 1) > > > + is_vfio_noiommu_enabled = 1; > > > + else > > > + is_vfio_noiommu_enabled = 0; > > > + } > > > + if ((pdrv->drv_flags & RTE_PCI_DRV_IOVA_AS_VA) == > 0) { > > > + iova_mode = RTE_IOVA_PA; > > > + } else if (is_vfio_noiommu_enabled != 0) { > > > + RTE_LOG(DEBUG, EAL, "Forcing to 'PA', > > vfio-noiommu mode configured\n"); > > > + iova_mode = RTE_IOVA_PA; > > > } > > > +#endif > > > + break; > > > > I'm not too well-versed in bus code, so please excuse my ignorance of > > this codebase. > > > > It seems that we would be ignoring drv_flags in case VFIO wasn't > > compiled - if the driver has no RTE_PCI_DRV_IOVA_AS_VA flag, i'm > pretty > > sure we can set IOVA mode to PA without caring about VFIO at all. I > > think it would be better to have something like this: > > > > if ((pdrv->drv_flags & RTE_PCI_DRV_IOVA_AS_VA) == 0) { > > iova_mode = RTE_IOVA_PA; > > break; // early exit > > } > > > > > > If the device is bound to VFIO, but the dpdk binary has no vfio support, > > we don't need to consider this device in the decision. > > Did I miss something in what you suggest? > > > > Yep, you're correct :) > > Reviewed-by: Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.bura...@intel.com> > Cool, thanks Anatoly! -- David Marchand
