|
| From: | Kirti Wankhede |
| Subject: | Re: [Qemu-devel] VFIO based vGPU(was Re: [Announcement] 2015-Q3 release of XenGT - a Mediated ...) |
| Date: | Thu, 28 Jan 2016 02:25:32 +0530 |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 |
On 1/27/2016 9:30 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2016-01-27 at 13:36 +0530, Kirti Wankhede wrote:On 1/27/2016 1:36 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:On Tue, 2016-01-26 at 02:20 -0800, Neo Jia wrote:On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 09:45:14PM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:From: Alex Williamson [mailto:address@hiddenHi Alex, Kevin and Jike, (Seems I shouldn't use attachment, resend it again to the list, patches are inline at the end) Thanks for adding me to this technical discussion, a great opportunity for us to design together which can bring both Intel and NVIDIA vGPU solution to KVM platform. Instead of directly jumping to the proposal that we have been working on recently for NVIDIA vGPU on KVM, I think it is better for me to put out couple quick comments / thoughts regarding the existing discussions on this thread as fundamentally I think we are solving the same problem, DMA, interrupt and MMIO. Then we can look at what we have, hopefully we can reach some consensus soon.Yes, and since you're creating and destroying the vgpu here, this is where I'd expect a struct device to be created and added to an IOMMU group. The lifecycle management should really include links between the vGPU and physical GPU, which would be much, much easier to do with struct devices create here rather than at the point where we start doing vfio "stuff".Infact to keep vfio-vgpu to be more generic, vgpu device creation and management can be centralized and done in vfio-vgpu. That also include adding to IOMMU group and VFIO group.Is this really a good idea? The concept of a vgpu is not unique to vfio, we want vfio to be a driver for a vgpu, not an integral part of the lifecycle of a vgpu. That certainly doesn't exclude adding infrastructure to make lifecycle management of a vgpu more consistent between drivers, but it should be done independently of vfio. I'll go back to the SR-IOV model, vfio is often used with SR-IOV VFs, but vfio does not create the VF, that's done in coordination with the PF making use of some PCI infrastructure for consistency between drivers. It seems like we need to take more advantage of the class and driver core support to perhaps setup a vgpu bus and class with vfio-vgpu just being a driver for those devices.For device passthrough or SR-IOV model, PCI devices are created by PCI bus driver and from the probe routine each device is added in vfio group.An SR-IOV VF is created by the PF driver using standard interfaces provided by the PCI core. The IOMMU group for a VF is added by the IOMMU driver when the device is created on the pci_bus_type. The probe routine of the vfio bus driver (vfio-pci) is what adds the device into the vfio group.For vgpu, there should be a common module that create vgpu device, say vgpu module, add vgpu device to an IOMMU group and then add it to vfio group. This module can handle management of vgpus. Advantage of keeping this module a separate module than doing device creation in vendor modules is to have generic interface for vgpu management, for example, files /sys/class/vgpu/vgpu_start and /sys/class/vgpu/vgpu_shudown and vgpu driver registration interface.But you're suggesting something very different from the SR-IOV model. If we wanted to mimic that model, the GPU specific driver should create the vgpu using services provided by a common interface. For instance i915 could call a new vgpu_device_create() which creates the device, adds it to the vgpu class, etc. That vgpu device should not be assumed to be used with vfio though, that should happen via a separate probe using a vfio-vgpu driver. It's that vfio bus driver that will add the device to a vfio group.
In that case vgpu driver should provide a driver registration interface to register vfio-vgpu driver.
struct vgpu_driver {
const char *name;
int (*probe) (struct vgpu_device *vdev);
void (*remove) (struct vgpu_device *vdev);
}
int vgpu_register_driver(struct vgpu_driver *driver)
{
...
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(vgpu_register_driver);
int vgpu_unregister_driver(struct vgpu_driver *driver)
{
...
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(vgpu_unregister_driver);
vfio-vgpu driver registers to vgpu driver. Then from
vgpu_device_create(), after creating the device it calls
vgpu_driver->probe(vgpu_device) and vfio-vgpu driver adds the device to
vfio group.
+--------------+ vgpu_register_driver()+---------------+
| __init() +------------------------->+ |
| | | |
| +<-------------------------+ vgpu.ko |
| vfio_vgpu.ko | probe()/remove() | |
| | +---------+ +---------+
+--------------+ | +-------+-------+ |
| ^ |
| callback | |
| +-------+--------+ |
| |vgpu_register_device() |
| | | |
+---^-----+-----+ +-----+------+-+
| nvidia.ko | | i915.ko |
| | | |
+-----------+ +------------+
Is my understanding correct?
Thanks,
Kirti
In the patch, vgpu_dev.c + vgpu_sysfs.c form such vgpu module and vgpu_vfio.c is for VFIO interface. Each vgpu device should be added to vfio group, so vgpu_group_init() from vgpu_vfio.c should be called per device. In the vgpu module, vgpu devices are created on request, so vgpu_group_init() should be called explicitly for per vgpu device. That’s why had merged the 2 modules, vgpu + vgpu_vfio to form one vgpu module. Vgpu_vfio would remain separate entity but merged with vgpu module.I disagree with this design, creation of a vgpu necessarily involves the GPU driver and should not be tied to use of the vgpu with vfio. vfio should be a driver for the device, maybe eventually not the only driver for the device. Thanks, Alex
| [Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |