Hi Alex,
On 19/09/2017 18:58, Alex Williamson wrote:
> With virtual PCI-Express chipsets, we now see userspace/guest drivers
> trying to match the physical MPS setting to a virtual downstream port.
> Of course a lone physical device surrounded by virtual interconnects
> cannot make a correct decis
Hi Sinan,
On 20/09/2017 18:29, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> On 9/20/2017 12:11 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
>> My impression is that the issue would be inefficiency. There should be
>> nothing functionally wrong with a read request less than MPS, but we're
>> not "filling" the TLP as much as the topology al
On 9/20/2017 12:11 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> My impression is that the issue would be inefficiency. There should be
> nothing functionally wrong with a read request less than MPS, but we're
> not "filling" the TLP as much as the topology allows. Is that your
> understanding as well, Sinan?
Th
On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 16:26:25 +0200
Auger Eric wrote:
> Hi Sinan,
>
> On 20/09/2017 15:01, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> > On 9/20/2017 3:59 AM, Auger Eric wrote:
> >>> My impression is that MRRS is predominantly device and driver
> >>> dependent, not topology dependent. A device can send a read request
On 9/20/2017 10:26 AM, Auger Eric wrote:
>> Because completions are required to be a minimum of MPS size. If MRRS > MPS,
>> read response is sent as multiple completions.
> With that patch, you can end up with MRRS < MPS. Do I understand
> correctly this is an issue?
To give the right context, I t
Hi Sinan,
On 20/09/2017 15:01, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> On 9/20/2017 3:59 AM, Auger Eric wrote:
>>> My impression is that MRRS is predominantly device and driver
>>> dependent, not topology dependent. A device can send a read request
>>> with a size larger than MPS, which implies that the device suppl
On 9/20/2017 9:01 AM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> The only valid criteria is that MRRS needs to be a multiple of MPS.
>
> https://linuxplumbersconf.org/2017/ocw//system/presentations/4732/original/crs.pdf
>
Apologies for sending the wrong link. Correcting it.
https://linuxplumbersconf.org/2017/ocw//sys
On 9/20/2017 3:59 AM, Auger Eric wrote:
>> My impression is that MRRS is predominantly device and driver
>> dependent, not topology dependent. A device can send a read request
>> with a size larger than MPS, which implies that the device supplying
>> the read data would split it into multiple TLPs
Hi Alex,
On 19/09/2017 22:20, Alex Williamson wrote:
> [cc +linux-pci, Sinan]
>
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 19:50:37 +0200
> Auger Eric wrote:
>
>> Hi Alex,
>>
>> On 19/09/2017 18:58, Alex Williamson wrote:
>>> With virtual PCI-Express chipsets, we now see userspace/guest drivers
>>> trying to match
[cc +linux-pci, Sinan]
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 19:50:37 +0200
Auger Eric wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> On 19/09/2017 18:58, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > With virtual PCI-Express chipsets, we now see userspace/guest drivers
> > trying to match the physical MPS setting to a virtual downstream port.
> > Of cour
Hi Alex,
On 19/09/2017 18:58, Alex Williamson wrote:
> With virtual PCI-Express chipsets, we now see userspace/guest drivers
> trying to match the physical MPS setting to a virtual downstream port.
> Of course a lone physical device surrounded by virtual interconnects
> cannot make a correct decis
With virtual PCI-Express chipsets, we now see userspace/guest drivers
trying to match the physical MPS setting to a virtual downstream port.
Of course a lone physical device surrounded by virtual interconnects
cannot make a correct decision for a proper MPS setting. Instead,
let's virtualize the M
12 matches
Mail list logo
