From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de. [193.142.43.55]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g64si123231oia.1.2021.12.01.10.41.07 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 01 Dec 2021 10:41:07 -0800 (PST) From: Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [patch 21/32] NTB/msi: Convert to msi_on_each_desc() In-Reply-To: <8c2262ba-173e-0007-bc4c-94ec54b2847d@intel.com> References: <20211126230957.239391799@linutronix.de> <20211126232735.547996838@linutronix.de> <7daba0e2-73a3-4980-c3a5-a71f6b597b22@deltatee.com> <874k7ueldt.ffs@tglx> <6ba084d6-2b26-7c86-4526-8fcd3d921dfd@deltatee.com> <87ilwacwp8.ffs@tglx> <87v909bf2k.ffs@tglx> <20211130202800.GE4670@nvidia.com> <87o861banv.ffs@tglx> <20211201001748.GF4670@nvidia.com> <87mtlkaauo.ffs@tglx> <8c2262ba-173e-0007-bc4c-94ec54b2847d@intel.com> Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2021 19:41:05 +0100 Message-ID: <87pmqg88xq.ffs@tglx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain To: Dave Jiang , Jason Gunthorpe Cc: Logan Gunthorpe , LKML , Bjorn Helgaas , Marc Zygnier , Alex Williamson , Kevin Tian , Megha Dey , Ashok Raj , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman , Jon Mason , Allen Hubbe , linux-ntb@googlegroups.com, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Heiko Carstens , Christian Borntraeger , x86@kernel.org, Joerg Roedel , iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org List-ID: Dave, please trim your replies. On Wed, Dec 01 2021 at 09:28, Dave Jiang wrote: > On 12/1/2021 3:16 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> Jason, >> >> CC+ IOMMU folks >> >> On Tue, Nov 30 2021 at 20:17, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 10:23:16PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> >> Though I fear there is also a use case for MSI-X and IMS tied to the >> same device. That network card you are talking about might end up using >> MSI-X for a control block and then IMS for the actual network queues >> when it is used as physical function device as a whole, but that's >> conceptually a different case. > > Hi Thomas. This is actually the IDXD usage for a mediated device passed > to a guest kernel when we plumb the pass through of IMS to the guest > rather than doing previous implementation of having a MSIX vector on > guest backed by IMS. Which makes a lot of sense. > The control block for the mediated device is emulated and therefore an > emulated MSIX vector will be surfaced as vector 0. However the queues > will backed by IMS vectors. So we end up needing MSIX and IMS coexist > running on the guest kernel for the same device. Why? What's wrong with using straight MSI-X for all of them? Thanks, tglx