Virtualization - Apr 2021 - [PATCH 2/3] vDPA/ifcvf: enable Intel C5000X-PL virtio-block for vDPA

On 4/15/2021 2:31 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
>
> ? 2021/4/15 ??1:55, Zhu Lingshan ??:
>>
>>
>> On 4/15/2021 11:34 AM, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>
>>> ? 2021/4/14 ??5:18, Zhu Lingshan ??:
>>>> This commit enabled Intel FPGA SmartNIC C5000X-PL virtio-block
>>>> for vDPA.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Zhu Lingshan <lingshan.zhu at intel.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> ? drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_base.h | 17 ++++++++++++++++-
>>>> ? drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_main.c | 10 +++++++++-
>>>> ? 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_base.h 
>>>> b/drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_base.h
>>>> index 1c04cd256fa7..8b403522bf06 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_base.h
>>>> +++ b/drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_base.h
>>>> @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
>>>> ? #include <linux/pci_regs.h>
>>>> ? #include <linux/vdpa.h>
>>>> ? #include <uapi/linux/virtio_net.h>
>>>> +#include <uapi/linux/virtio_blk.h>
>>>> ? #include <uapi/linux/virtio_config.h>
>>>> ? #include <uapi/linux/virtio_pci.h>
>>>> ? @@ -28,7 +29,12 @@
>>>> ? #define C5000X_PL_SUBSYS_VENDOR_ID??? 0x8086
>>>> ? #define C5000X_PL_SUBSYS_DEVICE_ID??? 0x0001
>>>> ? -#define IFCVF_SUPPORTED_FEATURES \
>>>> +#define C5000X_PL_BLK_VENDOR_ID??????? 0x1AF4
>>>> +#define C5000X_PL_BLK_DEVICE_ID??????? 0x1001
>>>> +#define C5000X_PL_BLK_SUBSYS_VENDOR_ID??? 0x8086
>>>> +#define C5000X_PL_BLK_SUBSYS_DEVICE_ID??? 0x0002
>>>> +
>>>> +#define IFCVF_NET_SUPPORTED_FEATURES \
>>>> ????????? ((1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_MAC)??????????? | \
>>>> ?????????? (1ULL << VIRTIO_F_ANY_LAYOUT) | \
>>>> ?????????? (1ULL << VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1)??????????? | \
>>>> @@ -37,6 +43,15 @@
>>>> ?????????? (1ULL << VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM) | \
>>>> ?????????? (1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_MRG_RXBUF))
>>>> ? +#define IFCVF_BLK_SUPPORTED_FEATURES \
>>>> +??????? ((1ULL << VIRTIO_BLK_F_SIZE_MAX)??????? | \
>>>> +???????? (1ULL << VIRTIO_BLK_F_SEG_MAX) | \
>>>> +???????? (1ULL << VIRTIO_BLK_F_BLK_SIZE)??????? | \
>>>> +???????? (1ULL << VIRTIO_BLK_F_TOPOLOGY)??????? | \
>>>> +???????? (1ULL << VIRTIO_BLK_F_MQ)??????????? | \
>>>> +???????? (1ULL << VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1)??????????? | \
>>>> +???????? (1ULL << VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM))
>>>
>>>
>>> I think we've discussed this sometime in the past but
what's the
>>> reason for such whitelist consider there's already a
get_features()
>>> implemention?
>>>
>>> E.g Any reason to block VIRTIO_BLK_F_WRITE_ZEROS or 
>>> VIRTIO_F_RING_PACKED?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>> The reason is some feature bits are supported in the device but not 
>> supported by the driver, e.g, for virtio-net, mq & cq
implementation
>> is not ready in the driver.
>
>
> I understand the case of virtio-net but I wonder why we need this for 
> block where we don't vq cvq.
>
> Thanks
This is still a subset of the feature bits read from hardware, I leave 
it here to code consistently, and indicate what we support clearly.
Are you suggesting remove this feature bits list and just use what we 
read from hardware?

Thansk
>
>
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> ? /* Only one queue pair for now. */
>>>> ? #define IFCVF_MAX_QUEUE_PAIRS??? 1
>>>> ? diff --git a/drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_main.c 
>>>> b/drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_main.c
>>>> index 99b0a6b4c227..9b6a38b798fa 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_main.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_main.c
>>>> @@ -171,7 +171,11 @@ static u64 ifcvf_vdpa_get_features(struct 
>>>> vdpa_device *vdpa_dev)
>>>> ????? struct ifcvf_hw *vf = vdpa_to_vf(vdpa_dev);
>>>> ????? u64 features;
>>>> ? -??? features = ifcvf_get_features(vf) &
IFCVF_SUPPORTED_FEATURES;
>>>> +??? if (vf->dev_type == VIRTIO_ID_NET)
>>>> +??????? features = ifcvf_get_features(vf) & 
>>>> IFCVF_NET_SUPPORTED_FEATURES;
>>>> +
>>>> +??? if (vf->dev_type == VIRTIO_ID_BLOCK)
>>>> +??????? features = ifcvf_get_features(vf) & 
>>>> IFCVF_BLK_SUPPORTED_FEATURES;
>>>> ? ????? return features;
>>>> ? }
>>>> @@ -509,6 +513,10 @@ static struct pci_device_id
ifcvf_pci_ids[] = {
>>>> ?????????????? C5000X_PL_DEVICE_ID,
>>>> ?????????????? C5000X_PL_SUBSYS_VENDOR_ID,
>>>> ?????????????? C5000X_PL_SUBSYS_DEVICE_ID) },
>>>> +??? { PCI_DEVICE_SUB(C5000X_PL_BLK_VENDOR_ID,
>>>> +???????????? C5000X_PL_BLK_DEVICE_ID,
>>>> +???????????? C5000X_PL_BLK_SUBSYS_VENDOR_ID,
>>>> +???????????? C5000X_PL_BLK_SUBSYS_DEVICE_ID) },
>>>> ? ????? { 0 },
>>>> ? };
>>>
>>
>

? 2021/4/15 ??2:41, Zhu Lingshan ??:
>>>>
>>>> I think we've discussed this sometime in the past but
what's the
>>>> reason for such whitelist consider there's already a
get_features()
>>>> implemention?
>>>>
>>>> E.g Any reason to block VIRTIO_BLK_F_WRITE_ZEROS or 
>>>> VIRTIO_F_RING_PACKED?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>> The reason is some feature bits are supported in the device but not
>>> supported by the driver, e.g, for virtio-net, mq & cq
implementation
>>> is not ready in the driver.
>>
>>
>> I understand the case of virtio-net but I wonder why we need this for 
>> block where we don't vq cvq.
>>
>> Thanks
> This is still a subset of the feature bits read from hardware, I leave 
> it here to code consistently, and indicate what we support clearly.
> Are you suggesting remove this feature bits list and just use what we 
> read from hardware?
>
> Thansk 

Yes, please do that.

The whiltelist doesn't help in this case I think.

Thanks