Re: [PATCH mlx5-next v4 1/4] PCI: Add sysfs callback to allow MSI-X table size change of SR-IOV VFs

[Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>]

On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 09:00:32PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 08:47:44AM -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 5:11 AM Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> > >
> > > Extend PCI sysfs interface with a new callback that allows configure
> > > the number of MSI-X vectors for specific SR-IO VF. This is needed
> > > to optimize the performance of newly bound devices by allocating
> > > the number of vectors based on the administrator knowledge of targeted VM.
> > >
> > > This function is applicable for SR-IOV VF because such devices allocate
> > > their MSI-X table before they will run on the VMs and HW can't guess the
> > > right number of vectors, so the HW allocates them statically and equally.
> > >
> > > 1) The newly added /sys/bus/pci/devices/.../vfs_overlay/sriov_vf_msix_count
> > > file will be seen for the VFs and it is writable as long as a driver is not
> > > bounded to the VF.
> > >
> > > The values accepted are:
> > >  * > 0 - this will be number reported by the VF's MSI-X capability
> > >  * < 0 - not valid
> > >  * = 0 - will reset to the device default value
> > >
> > > 2) In order to make management easy, provide new read-only sysfs file that
> > > returns a total number of possible to configure MSI-X vectors.
> > >
> > > cat /sys/bus/pci/devices/.../vfs_overlay/sriov_vf_total_msix
> > >   = 0 - feature is not supported
> > >   > 0 - total number of MSI-X vectors to consume by the VFs
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> > > ---
> > >  Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-pci |  32 +++++
> > >  drivers/pci/iov.c                       | 180 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  drivers/pci/msi.c                       |  47 +++++++
> > >  drivers/pci/pci.h                       |   4 +
> > >  include/linux/pci.h                     |  10 ++
> > >  5 files changed, 273 insertions(+)
> > >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > +
> > > +static umode_t sriov_pf_attrs_are_visible(struct kobject *kobj,
> > > +                                         struct attribute *a, int n)
> > > +{
> > > +       struct device *dev = kobj_to_dev(kobj);
> > > +       struct pci_dev *pdev = to_pci_dev(dev);
> > > +
> > > +       if (!pdev->msix_cap || !dev_is_pf(dev))
> > > +               return 0;
> > > +
> > > +       return a->mode;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static umode_t sriov_vf_attrs_are_visible(struct kobject *kobj,
> > > +                                         struct attribute *a, int n)
> > > +{
> > > +       struct device *dev = kobj_to_dev(kobj);
> > > +       struct pci_dev *pdev = to_pci_dev(dev);
> > > +
> > > +       if (!pdev->msix_cap || dev_is_pf(dev))
> > > +               return 0;
> > > +
> > > +       return a->mode;
> > > +}
> > > +
> >
> > Given the changes I don't see why we need to add the "visible"
> > functions. We are only registering this from the PF if there is a need
> > to make use of the interfaces, correct? If so we can just assume that
> > the interfaces should always be visible if they are requested.
>
> I added them to make extension of this vfs_overlay interface more easy,
> so we won't forget that current fields needs "msix_cap". Also I followed
> same style as other attribute_group which has .is_visible.
>
> >
> > Also you may want to look at placing a link to the VF folders in the
> > PF folder, although I suppose there are already links from the PF PCI
> > device to the VF PCI devices so maybe that isn't necessary. It just
> > takes a few extra steps to navigate between the two.
>
> We already have, I don't think that we need to add extra links, it will
> give nothing.
>
> [leonro@vm ~]$ ls -l /sys/bus/pci/devices/0000\:01\:00.0/
> ....
> drwxr-xr-x 2 root root        0 Jan 24 14:02 vfs_overlay
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root        0 Jan 24 14:02 virtfn0 -> ../0000:01:00.1
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root        0 Jan 24 14:02 virtfn1 -> ../0000:01:00.2
> ....

Alexander, are we clear here? Do you expect v5 without ".is_visible" from me?

Thanks

>
> Thanks