Re: [PATCH 00/11] Introduce transitional mmr pci device

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 03:16:53PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
> 
> 
> > From: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> > Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 11:07 AM
> 
> > > > OTOH it is presumably required for scalability anyway, no?
> > > No.
> > > Most new generation SIOV and SR-IOV devices operate without any para-
> > virtualization.
> > 
> > Don't see the connection to PV. You need an emulation layer in the host if you
> > want to run legacy guests. Looks like it could do transport vq just as well.
> >
> Transport vq for legacy MMR purpose seems fine with its latency and DMA overheads.
> Your question was about "scalability".
> After your latest response, I am unclear what "scalability" means.
> Do you mean saving the register space in the PCI device?

yes that's how you used scalability in the past.

> If yes, than, no for legacy guests for scalability it is not required, because the legacy register is subset of 1.x.

Weird.  what does guest being legacy have to do with a wish to save
registers on the host hardware? You don't have so many legacy guests as
modern guests? Why?



>  
> > > > And presumably it can all be done in firmware ...
> > > > Is there actual hardware that can't implement transport vq but is
> > > > going to implement the mmr spec?
> > > >
> > > Nvidia and Marvell DPUs implement MMR spec.
> > 
> > Hmm implement it in what sense exactly?
> >
> Do not follow the question.
> The proposed series will be implemented as PCI SR-IOV devices using MMR spec.
>  
> > > Transport VQ has very high latency and DMA overheads for 2 to 4 bytes
> > read/write.
> > 
> > How many of these 2 byte accesses trigger from a typical guest?
> > 
> Mostly during the VM boot time. 20 to 40 registers read write access.

That is not a lot! How long does a DMA operation take then?

> > > And before discussing "why not that approach", lets finish reviewing "this
> > approach" first.
> > 
> > That's a weird way to put it. We don't want so many ways to do legacy if we can
> > help it.
> Sure, so lets finish the review of current proposal details.
> At the moment 
> a. I don't see any visible gain of transport VQ other than device reset part I explained.

For example, we do not need a new range of device IDs and existing
drivers can bind on the host.

> b. it can be a way with high latency, DMA overheads on the virtqueue for read/writes for small access.

numbers?

-- 
MST