From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24735C432BE for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2021 11:36:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD45D60FC0 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2021 11:36:46 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org CD45D60FC0 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:45526 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mL24L-0004Yi-BN for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Tue, 31 Aug 2021 07:36:45 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:50180) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mL23D-0003iP-7X for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 31 Aug 2021 07:35:35 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]:38419) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mL237-00008t-Ly for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 31 Aug 2021 07:35:33 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1630409727; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=g2VGzo5TqUEMNtHXLrpszy68t/BmZz8+gI4LAUeEDPs=; b=Ph32LLgsdfBFvKGuIJVvKbADUtpkWjmAW2kcghNkJhsbshQr4cQ5chE8Roexqqs+AeJLm/ 5jD6mfkmmRz/qGhIJE0+uU3bWaErgOq+1UwadVJm3JHiaBqa/UK7b4wgdZGGdLEDYcU/iT I1t+FA/CNQ+KzmovxJhbOO2pdM73S70= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-130-zMfotjqVNFm4yiTm_TeaOA-1; Tue, 31 Aug 2021 07:35:26 -0400 X-MC-Unique: zMfotjqVNFm4yiTm_TeaOA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BCE52871827 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2021 11:35:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from blackfin.pond.sub.org (ovpn-112-4.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.112.4]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 772CC6A912; Tue, 31 Aug 2021 11:35:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by blackfin.pond.sub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id F0CF011380A9; Tue, 31 Aug 2021 13:35:04 +0200 (CEST) From: Markus Armbruster To: Peter Xu Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] vl: Prioritize realizations of devices References: <20210823215623.bagyo3oojdpk3byj@habkost.net> <8735qxhnhn.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <87h7fdg12w.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <87y28oy6rm.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <20210826133629.2ddd3b88@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2021 13:35:04 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Peter Xu's message of "Mon, 30 Aug 2021 15:02:53 -0400") Message-ID: <87mtoxzw2f.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.15 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=armbru@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.133.124; envelope-from=armbru@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -31 X-Spam_score: -3.2 X-Spam_bar: --- X-Spam_report: (-3.2 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.391, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: "Daniel P . =?utf-8?Q?Berrang?= =?utf-8?Q?=C3=A9?=" , Eduardo Habkost , "Michael S . Tsirkin" , Jason Wang , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Dr . David Alan Gilbert" , Eric Auger , Alex Williamson , Paolo Bonzini , Igor Mammedov Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" Peter Xu writes: > On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 09:43:59AM -0400, Peter Xu wrote: >> > > A simple state machine can track "has IOMMU" state. It has three states >> > > "no so far", "yes", and "no", and two events "add IOMMU" and "add device >> > > that needs to know". State diagram: >> > > >> > > no so far >> > > +--- (start state) ---+ >> > > | | >> > > add IOMMU | | add device that >> > > | | needs to know >> > > v v >> > > +--> yes no <--+ >> > > | | add device that | | >> > > +-----+ needs to know +-----+ >> > > >> > > "Add IOMMU" in state "no" is an error. >> > >> > question is how we distinguish "device that needs to know" >> > from device that doesn't need to know, and then recently >> > added feature 'bypass IOMMU' adds more fun to this. >> >> Maybe we can start from "no device needs to know"? Then add more into it when >> the list expands. >> >> vfio-pci should be a natural fit because we're sure it won't break any valid >> old configurations. However we may need to be careful on adding more devices, >> e.g. when some old configuration might work on old binaries, but I'm not sure. > > Btw, I think this state machine is indeed bringing some complexity on even > understanding it - it is definitely working but it's not obvious to anyone at > the first glance, and it's only solving problem for vIOMMU. E.g., do we need > yet another state machine for some other ordering constraints? > > From that POV, I don't like this solution more than the simple "assign priority > for device realization" idea.. I wouldn't worry about other ordering constraints until we have them. If you do, please tell! I'm hoping you can't, because such implicit constraints are commonly signs of oversimplified / screwed up machine modeling.