Re: [PATCH mlx5-next 1/4] PCI: Configure number of MSI-X vectors for SR-IOV VFs
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
Date: 2021-01-08 21:10:06
Also in:
linux-pci, linux-rdma
On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 10:54:38PM -0500, Don Dutile wrote:
On 1/7/21 7:57 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:quoted
On Sun, Jan 03, 2021 at 10:24:37AM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
quoted
quoted
+ **/ +int pci_set_msix_vec_count(struct pci_dev *dev, int numb) +{ + struct pci_dev *pdev = pci_physfn(dev); + + if (!dev->msix_cap || !pdev->msix_cap) + return -EINVAL; + + if (dev->driver || !pdev->driver || + !pdev->driver->sriov_set_msix_vec_count) + return -EOPNOTSUPP; + + if (numb < 0) + /* + * We don't support negative numbers for now, + * but maybe in the future it will make sense. + */ + return -EINVAL; + + return pdev->driver->sriov_set_msix_vec_count(dev, numb);So we write to a VF sysfs file, get here and look up the PF, call a PF driver callback with the VF as an argument, the callback (at least for mlx5) looks up the PF from the VF, then does some mlx5-specific magic to the PF that influences the VF somehow?There's no PF lookup above.... it's just checking if a pdev has a driver with the desired msix-cap setting(reduction) feature.
We started with the VF (the sysfs file is attached to the VF). "pdev" is the corresponding PF; that's what I meant by "looking up the PF". Then we call the PF driver sriov_set_msix_vec_count() method. I asked because this raises questions of whether we need mutual exclusion or some other coordination between setting this for multiple VFs. Obviously it's great to answer all these in email, but at the end of the day, the rationale needs to be in the commit, either in code comments or the commit log.