From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf0-f174.google.com (mail-pf0-f174.google.com [209.85.192.174]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35B0F569C for ; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 01:52:08 +0100 (CET) Received: by pfbg73 with SMTP id g73so39266107pfb.1 for ; Wed, 09 Dec 2015 16:52:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=networkplumber-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=jsA8YWi0QneJ8WFBMmoh+cedE6SUMu5KrSPm4QLIuN4=; b=mtHqh0oq9emglfD+bnnuY6OWev00KNqSOBjza0VA10PGd2lsfDvJaKlH5Dhs9XiAuA JHy/AfSr2djfYaw2H6/3VnvNJU9JxloSE+G+cMfeRoXx0j8IpdtTha4GyyRUpQFCEt/v N6KRQT3IrTaGwSXmi+Wy6f9EeaRrOFX0er1ZeaKT5tul8rkInTgKP3Pn5LKq8r9DVw6/ FYfLtJ1hy8glMZ7gDAEF8w9UllMV5LSHyzWFjtb51E3Ipynk+GyAPMpTIXqAVFK68+AH 6g9cfHiyX9S1KPvvDjbcOBHe80+uU3AnYouEye6aJaah4BV1JxtBfADd+POK/dzbR7lw y+0g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=jsA8YWi0QneJ8WFBMmoh+cedE6SUMu5KrSPm4QLIuN4=; b=I3rZKLNIfIjmyfC0/+9TVUuw/je6WVZy2MloDJaPPrU+E+x+o1Xog4xywJpigKCvbE aZGt1+E6v7GjXMTDvy4LgAwMWfLf/vWG2jCUe/GekMd6dW/V+GUF1RSE4nEW4AuFSHLX nG+Y3DxGaaac+xLMQIeBZQJbnHsPIDNwfPr6t2hM1wSOItdQWQcM0tU4f5RiUDx8pmKf 4HEHUYsVWMvorxpfjuOHl0Gl5P6HrYNSdT3Ho9uTTmf+SnMeAht1Wfagsasr3xiOG08W qUwVFSZ2mfG3hwoa9uE/OuuBBqGPyTI/D3m5K138IovWoJDJKtp/8NZWynm9kNbMoLyL BXEw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnMfew8DUlIUXqxMV/6ZGEC6cu78GIlWgd1caqPOp1OWsJ+gr0lgYmdac/HNiDQA3TLcE+el393JZdEZuB1rHJcJYSx8Q== X-Received: by 10.98.16.76 with SMTP id y73mr2655917pfi.151.1449708727506; Wed, 09 Dec 2015 16:52:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from xeon-e3 (static-50-53-82-155.bvtn.or.frontiernet.net. [50.53.82.155]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b62sm682808pfd.11.2015.12.09.16.52.06 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 09 Dec 2015 16:52:07 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 16:52:16 -0800 From: Stephen Hemminger To: Alex Williamson Message-ID: <20151209165216.778bf9e3@xeon-e3> In-Reply-To: <1449703334.15753.476.camel@redhat.com> References: <1449683756-13381-1-git-send-email-stephen@networkplumber.org> <2562631.e9AmeysRzG@xps13> <20151209135801.17965487@xeon-e3> <2072515.rqoGFgxSIN@xps13> <20151209151215.4d88b9d4@xeon-e3> <1449703334.15753.476.camel@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] vfio: support iommu group zero X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 00:52:08 -0000 On Wed, 09 Dec 2015 16:22:14 -0700 Alex Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2015-12-09 at 15:12 -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > On Wed, 09 Dec 2015 23:49:59 +0100 > > Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > > 2015-12-09 13:58, Stephen Hemminger: > > > > On Wed, 09 Dec 2015 22:12:33 +0100 > > > > Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > > > > > > 2015-12-09 09:55, Stephen Hemminger: > > > > > > The current implementation of VFIO will not with the new no-IOMMU mode > > > > > > in 4.4 kernel. The original code assumed that IOMMU group zero would > > > > > > never be used. Group numbers are assigned starting at zero, and up > > > > > > until now the group numbers came from the hardware which is likely > > > > > > to use group 0 for system devices that are not used with DPDK. > > > > > > > > > > > > The fix is to allow 0 as a valid group and rearrange code > > > > > > to split the return value from the group value. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger > > > > > > --- > > > > > > Why was this ignored? It was originally sent on 26 Oct 15 back > > > > > > when IOMMU discussion was lively. > > > > > > > > > > There was no review of this patch. > > > > > The patch has been marked as deferred recently when it was too late > > > > > to do such feature changes in DPDK code: > > > > > http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/8035/ > > > > > > > > This is why as a fallback the MAINTAINER has to review the patch > > > > or direct a sub-maintainer to do it. I think almost 2 months is > > > > plenty of time for review. > > > > > > 27 October was 3 days before the feature deadline. > > > And you have not pinged about it since then. > > > But that's true I have missed the importance of this patch. > > > Would it help to have it integrated today? > > > Are you sure it won't break something else? > > > > Could the original VFIO submitter from Intel review it. > > vfio group 0 has always been valid, but it's unlikely that you'd ever > hit it in regular usage since it will typically be the root bus device. > It's only with no-iommu mode in vfio that it's common, but that's > getting reverted for Linux v4.4, so that may change your priorities > about squeezing this in at the last minute. Thanks, Why, who objected? It was useful and working fine as far as I tested. Really wanted to get to the per-queue stuff, but that was harder to got working (even on regular IOMMU).