[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] xen-pciback: redo VF placement in the virtual topology

  • To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
  • From: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 10:38:52 -0400
  • Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=oracle.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=oracle.com; dkim=pass header.d=oracle.com; arc=none
  • Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=6zaSteqAwXZQKFyG6eNHEu8n1t0gNu+xC2iOMIy3VC0=; b=lB1z3SLmQQIQ19C/kdwM+ePZnjFI76C58e+F22Qs97ukkO+wbPHO6Xh19FBABVclnTWYyeXT7Vxt55HXwmgaaDuIMIn9wfEaRylD6p1MIzQecCEjppOcjN48cTYghem+53QqJS8HA6gM8NDLDXrgYsDe8719+w/G0gN/uJ8okaaIEDVCDDeMay5Bh3t0VeOTcv7/2oyyI4OkMSQI24gxINbPYXpOMO2qRUzzzBSXXuhb4ADH/+byLhtmf913Y3MkL+5P4Sj6HUe+HCbDtPX39/QcA2OxNZQxfqunXkadtXCfPjfivH24o41MRCnTfMYSSVhcutB5RlEP9FhYweEJUg==
  • Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=Iw1Ghjld+bPSbqAotvfcpK44Dy5K3h6Q3sv/ehYce66T0w3qFZ1pQdCv1zHsaDyPgQpZwlD/5l0iu9RwuSpK5eT+c/t/YpmAqjvmnqxaHLUlKy3Tn2gWavMbdDBsgk7eRClfuY2oGvbTSeSQek+jnZP7uc1T/wjarW8PTACofKl4YF3FfXC8BLmRndFg/a2z4Rx0aCzZAKYIZkXJ6bmJKV2lNMTDaM9b3YhQEp3yNNmqcD1cyqwhfMPdEL1XjdcxWIcxMK7V/omiwuYW65LvFi5odHGNMwZrkzuL3BiPcYf06UaMwrdgX3lUXv+C+WmLPiAu6SdEehExQpNQpfQngg==
  • Authentication-results: lists.xenproject.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;lists.xenproject.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=oracle.com;
  • Cc: Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>, Konrad Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Thu, 20 May 2021 14:39:17 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>

On 5/20/21 3:43 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 20.05.2021 02:36, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>> On 5/18/21 12:13 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> @@ -95,22 +95,25 @@ static int __xen_pcibk_add_pci_dev(struc
>>>     /*
>>>      * Keep multi-function devices together on the virtual PCI bus, except
>>> -    * virtual functions.
>>> +    * that we want to keep virtual functions at func 0 on their own. They
>>> +    * aren't multi-function devices and hence their presence at func 0
>>> +    * may cause guests to not scan the other functions.
>> So your reading of the original commit is that whatever the issue it was, 
>> only function zero was causing the problem? In other words, you are not 
>> concerned that pci_scan_slot() may now look at function 1 and skip all 
>> higher-numbered function (assuming the problem is still there)?
> I'm not sure I understand the question: Whether to look at higher numbered
> slots is a function of slot 0's multi-function bit alone, aiui. IOW if
> slot 1 is being looked at in the first place, slots 2-7 should also be
> looked at.

Wasn't the original patch describing a problem strictly as one for 
single-function devices, so the multi-function bit is not set? I.e. if all VFs 
(which are single-function devices) are placed in the same slot then 
pci_scan_slot() would only look at function 0 and ignore anything 

My question is whether it would "only look at function 0 and ignore anything 
higher-numbered" or "only look at the lowest-numbered function and ignore 
anything higher-numbered".




Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.