Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
IronPort-SDR: oZ7qCx9N4vOYgPsMkZd7unBaxzTZRLkRi72h41xGaQJnzA8NZtU7Rad26aYG979ir3W+KM48w+
 HfdvsQeuNqRw==
IronPort-SDR: r5lvlq6vEkvkfvPCQqjnHcGY2peVNNIc9/QzbOYJcegwikPdzidKYdORioooW6juonuByrZhi2
 IaOBaJPQp2hw==
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 15/20] vfio/mdev: idxd: ims domain setup for the vdcm
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
Cc:     alex.williamson@redhat.com, kwankhede@nvidia.com,
        tglx@linutronix.de, vkoul@kernel.org, megha.dey@intel.com,
        jacob.jun.pan@intel.com, ashok.raj@intel.com, yi.l.liu@intel.com,
        baolu.lu@intel.com, kevin.tian@intel.com, sanjay.k.kumar@intel.com,
        tony.luck@intel.com, dan.j.williams@intel.com,
        eric.auger@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.com,
        dmaengine@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org
References: <162164243591.261970.3439987543338120797.stgit@djiang5-desk3.ch.intel.com>
 <162164283796.261970.11020270418798826121.stgit@djiang5-desk3.ch.intel.com>
 <20210523235023.GL1002214@nvidia.com>
 <29cec5cd-3f23-f947-4545-f507b3f70988@intel.com>
 <20210527005444.GV1002214@nvidia.com>
From:   Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>
Message-ID: <f5606802-2ff3-2f54-0ff1-c1f1dd59f52c@intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 26 May 2021 18:15:17 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.10.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210527005444.GV1002214@nvidia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Precedence: bulk


On 5/26/2021 5:54 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 05:22:22PM -0700, Dave Jiang wrote:
>> On 5/23/2021 4:50 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 05:20:37PM -0700, Dave Jiang wrote:
>>>> @@ -77,8 +80,18 @@ int idxd_mdev_host_init(struct idxd_device *idxd, struct mdev_driver *drv)
>>>>    		return rc;
>>>>    	}
>>>> +	ims_info.max_slots = idxd->ims_size;
>>>> +	ims_info.slots = idxd->reg_base + idxd->ims_offset;
>>>> +	idxd->ims_domain = pci_ims_array_create_msi_irq_domain(idxd->pdev, &ims_info);
>>>> +	if (!idxd->ims_domain) {
>>>> +		dev_warn(dev, "Fail to acquire IMS domain\n");
>>>> +		iommu_dev_disable_feature(dev, IOMMU_DEV_FEAT_AUX);
>>>> +		return -ENODEV;
>>>> +	}
>>> I'm quite surprised that every mdev doesn't create its own ims_domain
>>> in its probe function.
>>>
>>> This places a global total limit on the # of vectors which makes me
>>> ask what was the point of using IMS in the first place ?
>>>
>>> The entire idea for IMS was to make the whole allocation system fully
>>> dynamic based on demand.
>> Hi Jason, thank you for the review of the series.
>>
>> My understanding is that the driver creates a single IMS domain for the
>> device and provides the address base and IMS numbers for the domain based on
>> device IMS resources. So the IMS region needs to be contiguous. Each mdev
>> can call msi_domain_alloc_irqs() and acquire the number of IMS vectors it
>> desires and the DEV MSI core code will keep track of which vectors are being
>> used. This allows the mdev devices to dynamically allocate based on demand.
>> If the driver allocates a domain per mdev, it'll needs to do internal
>> accounting of the base and vector numbers for each of those domains that the
>> MSI core already provides. Isn't that what we are trying to avoid? As mdevs
>> come and go, that partitioning will become fragmented.
> I suppose it depends entirely on how the HW works.
>
> If the HW has a fixed number of interrupt vectors organized in a
> single table then by all means allocate a single domain that spans the
> entire fixed HW vector space. But then why do we have a ims_size
> variable here??
>
> However, that really begs the question of why the HW is using IMS at
> all? I'd expect needing 2x-10x the max MSI-X vector size before
> reaching for IMS.
>
> So does IDXD really have like a 4k - 40k entry linear IMS vector table
> to wrap a shared domain around?
>
> Basically, that isn't really "scalable" it is just "bigger".
>
> Fully scalable would be for every mdev to point to its own 2k entry
> IMS table that is allocated on the fly. Every mdev gets a domain and
> every domain is fully utilized by the mdev in emulating
> MSI-X. Basically for a device like idxd every PASID would have to map
> to a IMS vector table array.
>
> I suppose that was not what was done?

At least not for first gen of hardware. DSA 1.0 has 2k of IMS entries 
total. ims_size is what is read from the device cap register. For MSIX, 
the device only has 1 misc vector and 8 I/O vectors. That's why IMS is 
being used for mdevs. We will discuss with our hardware people your 
suggestion.

>
> Jason