On Sun, Jun 04, 2023 at 02:48:59PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
> 
> 
> > From: Michael S. Tsirkin <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2023 10:23 AM
> 
> > > > > > E.g. the notification can include VF# + VQ#?
> > > > > > At least as an option?
> > > > > No. we discussed this before to have each device on its own BAR.
> > > > > Hence no
> > > > VF# in the doorbell.
> > 
> > doorbell == available notification? yes in fact it's not strictly needed 
> > since PF can
> > use a different address for each VF.
> > 
> Sorry for doorbell terminology.
> Yes, available buffer notification.
> 
> > 
> > I am talking about the idea of exposing legacy VQ notifications in the PF 
> > BAR. To
> > me it looks nicely symmetrical, all legacy emulation goes through PF, and I 
> > think
> > it simplifies a bunch of driver code moving some complexity into hardware
> > which is what you seem to be intent on?
> > 
> Symmetrical only looks fine in emails.
> In real device, it doesn't. We also discussed this before.
> I will capture this in alternatives section of v4.
> 
> Each VF has its own available buffer notification in hardware like 1.x.
> We do not want to duplicate (and add) such functionality on the PF BAR 
> hardware when it already exists on the VF.

yes but here we are talking about legacy notifications, not 1.x

> > > > Will it help if I get some feedback from windows driver team on the
> > > > design?
> > > >
> > > May be. I am not sure, given that these drivers are not inbox, they are 
> > > not in
> > purview of the OS vendor.
> > 
> > Exactly a reason we might not see new APIs?
> > 
> I don't know.

Exactly.

> > > And OS vendor improves the OS APIs in the future for new use cases.
> > >
> > > Even the SR-IOV model in Windows is not elaborate as Linux AFAIK.
> > > So I am not sure how much value add we will have.
> > > But sure, better to have their view.
> > > Will you please add them to the discussion here or I should check?
> > 
> > I don't think they are subscribed to the list, so I can't.
> > Will talk to them.
> > 
> Ok.
> 
> > > Did anyone use vdpa acceleration on Windows?
> > > Do you have data points that someone wants VF acceleration on Windows
> > hypervisor?
> > > If you bring the use case, I would like to see there commitment to 
> > > develop the
> > code also and it will be great to have virtio there.
> > 
> > We are talking about an interface that will be used tens of years from now. 
> > If the
> > interface is awkward to use on some platforms let's make it easier not hide
> > behind excuses of no demand to fix it as of last Friday.
> It is not hiding.
> The fact that virtio drivers are not inbox. I don't see an actual user by the 
> OS vendor for the decade passed.

But why does it matter? There are a bunch of users of virtio, I know that.

> And, I do not anticipate use of legacy for tens of years from now.
> 
> It is not even a conclusion that it is awkward to use.
> You are concluding that one OS may never want to evolve their kernel APIs.

They might. That takes many years too.

> I don't see it that way.
> We have seen with two hypervisors evolving their kernel APIs and both have 
> large deployments.
> 
> I am not pessimistic that 3rd OS vendor will not evolve.
> 
> > Device vendors can choose not to support some platforms, that is their
> > decision. As a compromise, consider device exposing this both in a PF and 
> > in a
> > VF and let's allow driver to use what's most convenient?
> >
> I also said yes, for this and you said "lets do one way".
> 
> So, when a 2nd OS vendor cannot use IPR scheme that they have, and they MUST 
> have everything through ONLY VF, to support them, a HW vendor will build PCI 
> device with VF legacy access registers stay in the VF.
> And spec update will be done.
> 
> We really don't see this happening. So better to build a practical spec.
> 
> And if this was important, I am still puzzled why you say "Just AQ is fine" 
> in v2 and why you wait for next 2 weeks for v3 to show up to raise the 
> concern now contradicting your ACK.

Because this is just AQ. All I am asking is that the BAR refers to PF,
same AQ command.

-- 
MST


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to