On 9/29/2016 8:12 PM, Tian, Kevin wrote: >> From: Daniel P. Berrange [mailto:berra...@redhat.com] >> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 10:39 PM >> >> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 02:35:48PM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote: >>>> From: Daniel P. Berrange [mailto:berra...@redhat.com] >>>> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 4:06 PM >>>> >>>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 12:48:33PM -0700, Neo Jia wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:47:53AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 02:05:52AM +0530, Kirti Wankhede wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi libvirt experts, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for valuable input on v1 version of RFC. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Quick brief, VFIO based mediated device framework provides a way to >>>>>>> virtualize their devices without SR-IOV, like NVIDIA vGPU, Intel KVMGT >>>>>>> and IBM's channel IO. This framework reuses VFIO APIs for all the >>>>>>> functionalities for mediated devices which are currently being used for >>>>>>> pass through devices. This framework introduces a set of new sysfs files >>>>>>> for device creation and its life cycle management. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Here is the summary of discussion on v1: >>>>>>> 1. Discover mediated device: >>>>>>> As part of physical device initialization process, vendor driver will >>>>>>> register their physical devices, which will be used to create virtual >>>>>>> device (mediated device, aka mdev) to the mediated framework. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Vendor driver should specify mdev_supported_types in directory format. >>>>>>> This format is class based, for example, display class directory format >>>>>>> should be as below. We need to define such set for each class of devices >>>>>>> which would be supported by mediated device framework. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --- mdev_destroy >>>>>>> --- mdev_supported_types >>>>>>> |-- 11 >>>>>>> | |-- create >>>>>>> | |-- name >>>>>>> | |-- fb_length >>>>>>> | |-- resolution >>>>>>> | |-- heads >>>>>>> | |-- max_instances >>>>>>> | |-- params >>>>>>> | |-- requires_group >>>>>>> |-- 12 >>>>>>> | |-- create >>>>>>> | |-- name >>>>>>> | |-- fb_length >>>>>>> | |-- resolution >>>>>>> | |-- heads >>>>>>> | |-- max_instances >>>>>>> | |-- params >>>>>>> | |-- requires_group >>>>>>> |-- 13 >>>>>>> |-- create >>>>>>> |-- name >>>>>>> |-- fb_length >>>>>>> |-- resolution >>>>>>> |-- heads >>>>>>> |-- max_instances >>>>>>> |-- params >>>>>>> |-- requires_group >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In the above example directory '11' represents a type id of mdev device. >>>>>>> 'name', 'fb_length', 'resolution', 'heads', 'max_instance' and >>>>>>> 'requires_group' would be Read-Only files that vendor would provide to >>>>>>> describe about that type. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 'create': >>>>>>> Write-only file. Mandatory. >>>>>>> Accepts string to create mediated device. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 'name': >>>>>>> Read-Only file. Mandatory. >>>>>>> Returns string, the name of that type id. >>>>>> >>>>>> Presumably this is a human-targetted title/description of >>>>>> the device. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 'fb_length': >>>>>>> Read-only file. Mandatory. >>>>>>> Returns <number>{K,M,G}, size of framebuffer. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 'resolution': >>>>>>> Read-Only file. Mandatory. >>>>>>> Returns 'hres x vres' format. Maximum supported resolution. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 'heads': >>>>>>> Read-Only file. Mandatory. >>>>>>> Returns integer. Number of maximum heads supported. >>>>>> >>>>>> None of these should be mandatory as that makes the mdev >>>>>> useless for non-GPU devices. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd expect to see a 'class' or 'type' attribute in the >>>>>> directory whcih tells you what kind of mdev it is. A >>>>>> valid 'class' value would be 'gpu'. The fb_length, >>>>>> resolution, and heads parameters would only be mandatory >>>>>> when class==gpu. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi Daniel, >>>>> >>>>> Here you are proposing to add a class named "gpu", which will make all >>>>> those gpu >>>>> related attributes mandatory, which libvirt can allow user to better >>>>> parse/present a particular mdev configuration? >>>>> >>>>> I am just wondering if there is another option that we just make all those >>>>> attributes that a mdev device can have as optional but still meaningful to >>>>> libvirt, so libvirt can still parse / recognize them as an class "mdev". >>>> >>>> 'mdev' isn't a class - mdev is the name of the kernel module. The class >>>> refers to the broad capability of the device. class would be things >>>> like "gpu", "nic", "fpga" or other such things. The point of the class >>>> is to identify which other attributes will be considered mandatory. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Thanks Daniel. This class definition makes sense to me. >>> >>> However I'm not sure whether we should define such common mandatory >>> attributes >>> of a 'gpu' class now. Intel will go with a 2's power sharing of type >>> definition... actual >>> type name to be finalized, but an example looks like below: >>> >>> [GVTG-SKL-x2]: available instances (2) >>> [GVTG-SKL-x4]: available instances (4) >>> [GVTG-SKL-x8]: available instances (8) >>> ... >>> >>> User can create different types of vGPUs simultaneously. A GVTG-SKL-x2 type >>> vGPU will get half of the physical GPU resource, while a GVTG-SKL-x4 type >>> will >>> get a quarter. However it's unclear to me how we want to enumerate those >>> resources into resolution or heads. I feel it'd be more reasonable for us >>> to push >>> initial libvirt mdev support w/o vgpu specific class definition, until we >>> see >>> a clear value of doing so (at that time we then follow Daniel's guideline >>> to define >>> mandatory attributes common to all GPU vendors). >> >> Libvirt won't report arbitrary vendor define attributes. So if we are not >> going to define a gpu class & associated attributes, then there will be >> no reporting of the 'heads', 'resolution', 'fb_length' data described >> above. >> > > yes, that's my point. I think nvidia may put them into the 'description' > attribute > just for descriptive purpose for now.
Will libvirt report 'description' RO attribute, its output would be string, so that user could be able to see the configuration of that profile? We can have 'class' as optional attribute. So Intel don't have to provide 'class' attribute and they don't have to specify mandatory attributes of that class. We would provide 'class' attribute and provide mandatory attributes. Thanks, Kirti
