[virtio-dev] RE: [virtio-comment] Re: [PATCH 09/11] transport-pci: Describe PCI MMR dev config registers

[Parav Pandit <parav@nvidia.com>]

> From: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
> Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2023 11:38 PM

> > > 1) spec doesn't enforce the size of a specific structure
> > Spec will be extended in coming time.
> 
> It's too late to do any new restriction without introducing a flag.
We are really diverging from the topic.
I don’t think it is late. The work in this area of PCI VF has not even begun fully.

> Mandating size may easily end up with a architecte specific solution.
> 
Unlikely. Other standard device types are also expanding this way.

> >
> > > 2) bing vendor locked thus a blocker for live migration as it
> > > mandate the layout for the guest, mediation layer is a must in this
> > > case to maintain cross vendor compatibility
> > >
> > With PCI VF will have compatibility check and also vendor recommendations.
> 
> I'm not sure what type of recommendations you want.
> 
> We've already had:
> 
> 1) features
> 2) config
>
Those cover the large part.
Apart from it some of the PCI device layout compat checks will be covered too.
 
> And what you proposed is to allow the management to know the exact
> hardware layout in order to check the compatibility? And the management
> needs to evolve as new structures are added. 
Mostly not mgmt stack may not need to evolve a lot.
Because most layouts should be growing within the device context and not at the PCI capabilities etc area.

And even if it does, its fine as large part of it standard PCI spec definitions.

> This complicates the work of
> management's furtherly which I'm not sure it can work.
>
Well, once we work towards it, it can work. :)

> >
> > > Hypervisor needs to start from a mediation method and do BAR
> > > assignment only when possible.
> > >
> > Not necessarily.
> >
> > > > Cons:
> > > > a. More AQ commands work in sw
> > >
> > > Note that this needs to be done on top of the transport virtqueue.
> > > And we need to carefully design the command sets since they could be
> > > mutually exclusive.
> > >
> > Not sure what more to expect out of transport virtqueue compared to AQ.
> > I didn’t follow, which part could be mutually exclusive?
> 
> Transport VQ allows a modern device to be transported via adminq.
> 
May be for devices it can work. Hypervisor mediation with CC on horizon for new capabilities is being reduced.
So we don’t see transport vq may not be path forward.

> And you want to add commands to transport for legacy devices.
>
Yes only legacy emulation who do not care about hypervisor mediation.
 
> Can a driver use both the modern transport commands as well as the legacy
> transport commands?
Hard to answer, I likely do not understand as driver namespace is unclear.
Let me try.

A modern driver in guest VM accessing a transitional device has its own transport vq for say config space RW.
This transport queue can directly reach to the device without hypervisor mediation, - yes.
Same device if accessed via some legacy guest VM driver, it will gets its config space accessed via transport VQ (AVQ) of the hypervisor PF AQ.