Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Add VFIO mediated device support and IMS support for the idxd driver.

From: "Dey, Megha" <megha.dey@linux.intel.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com>
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
	Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>, Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>,
	maz@kernel.org, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
	Jacob jun Pan <jacob.jun.pan@intel.com>,
	"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@intel.com>, Yi L Liu <yi.l.liu@intel.com>,
	baolu.lu@intel.com, "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
	Sanjay K Kumar <sanjay.k.kumar@intel.com>,
	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>, Jing Lin <jing.lin@intel.com>,
	kwankhede@nvidia.com, eric.auger@redhat.com, parav@mellanox.com,
	dmaengine@vger.kernel.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
	linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, KVM list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Add VFIO mediated device support and IMS support for the idxd driver.
Date: Sun, 3 May 2020 17:20:41 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <913537f9-5b5a-2334-f3cf-a8417d5208dd@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200503223618.GG19158@mellanox.com>


On 5/3/2020 3:36 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Sun, May 03, 2020 at 03:31:39PM -0700, Dey, Megha wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jason,
>>
>> On 5/3/2020 3:22 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 03:31:51PM -0700, Dey, Megha wrote:
>>>>>> This has been my concern reviewing the implementation. IMS needs more
>>>>>> than one in-tree user to validate degrees of freedom in the api. I had
>>>>>> been missing a second "in-tree user" to validate the scope of the
>>>>>> flexibility that was needed.
>>>>>
>>>>> IMS is too narrowly specified.
>>>>>
>>>>> All platforms that support MSI today can support IMS. It is simply a
>>>>> way for the platform to give the driver an addr/data pair that triggers
>>>>> an interrupt when a posted write is performed to that pair.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, yes and no. IMS requires interrupt remapping in addition to the
>>>> dynamic nature of IRQ allocation.
>>>
>>> You've mentioned remapping a few times, but I really can't understand
>>> why it has anything to do with platform_msi or IMS..
>>
>> So after some internal discussions, we have concluded that IMS has no
>> linkage with Interrupt remapping, IR is just a platform concept. IMS is just
>> a name Intel came up with, all it really means is device managed addr/data
>> writes to generate interrupts. Technically we can call something IMS even if
>> device has its own location to store interrupts in non-pci standard
>> mechanism, much like platform-msi indeed. We simply need to extend
>> platform-msi to its address some of its shortcomings: increase number of
>> interrupts to > 2048, enable dynamic allocation of interrupts, add
>> mask/unmask callbacks in addition to write_msg etc.
> 
> Sounds right to me
> 
> Persumably you still need a way for the driver, eg vfio, to ensure a
> MSI is remappable, but shouldn't that be exactly the same way as done
> in normal PCI MSI today?

yes exactly, it should be done in the same way as PCI-MSI, if IR is 
enabled we will have IR_PCI_MSI for platform msi as well.
> 
>> FWIW, even MSI can be IMS with rules on how to manage the addr/data writes
>> following pci sig .. its just that.
> 
> Yep, IMHO, our whole handling of MSI is very un-general sometimes..
> 
> I thought the msi_domain stuff that some platforms are using is a way
> to improve on that? You might find that updating x86 to use msi_domain
> might be helpful in this project???

yes, we need to take a closer look at this.
> 
> Jason
>