Message ID | 1550611400-13703-1-git-send-email-kwankhede@nvidia.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | Add migration support for VFIO device | expand |
* Kirti Wankhede (kwankhede@nvidia.com) wrote:
> Add migration support for VFIO device
Hi Kirti,
Can you explain how this compares and works with Yan Zhao's
set?
These look like two incompatible solutions to me - if that's
the case we need to take a step back and figure out how to combine
them into one.
Dave
--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilbert@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
On 2/20/2019 3:52 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > * Kirti Wankhede (kwankhede@nvidia.com) wrote: >> Add migration support for VFIO device > > Hi Kirti, > Can you explain how this compares and works with Yan Zhao's > set? This patch set is incremental version of my previous patch set: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/1000719/ This takes care of the feedbacks received on previous version. This patch set is different than Yan Zhao's set. Thanks, Kirti > These look like two incompatible solutions to me - if that's > the case we need to take a step back and figure out how to combine > them into one. > > Dave > > -- > Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilbert@redhat.com / Manchester, UK >
> From: Kirti Wankhede [mailto:kwankhede@nvidia.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 1:25 PM > > On 2/20/2019 3:52 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > > * Kirti Wankhede (kwankhede@nvidia.com) wrote: > >> Add migration support for VFIO device > > > > Hi Kirti, > > Can you explain how this compares and works with Yan Zhao's > > set? > > This patch set is incremental version of my previous patch set: > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/1000719/ > This takes care of the feedbacks received on previous version. > > This patch set is different than Yan Zhao's set. > I can help give some background about Yan's work: There was a big gap between Kirti's last version and the overall review comments, especially this one: https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg576652.html Then there was no reply from Kirti whether she agreed with the comments and was working on a new version. Then we think we should jump in to keep the ball moving, based on a fresh implementation according to recommended direction, i.e. focusing on device state management instead of sticking to migration flow in kernel API design. and also more importantly we provided kernel side implementation based on Intel GVT-g to give the whole picture of both user/kernel side changes. That should give people a better understanding of how those new APIs are expected to be used by Qemu, and to be implemented by vendor driver. That is why Yan just shared her work. Now it's great to see that Kirti is still actively working on this effort and is also moving toward the right direction. Let's have a close look at two implementations and then choose a cleaner one as base for future enhancements. :-) Thanks Kevin
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 05:52:53AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote: > > From: Kirti Wankhede [mailto:kwankhede@nvidia.com] > > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 1:25 PM > > > > On 2/20/2019 3:52 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > > > * Kirti Wankhede (kwankhede@nvidia.com) wrote: > > >> Add migration support for VFIO device > > > > > > Hi Kirti, > > > Can you explain how this compares and works with Yan Zhao's > > > set? > > > > This patch set is incremental version of my previous patch set: > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/1000719/ > > This takes care of the feedbacks received on previous version. > > > > This patch set is different than Yan Zhao's set. > > > > I can help give some background about Yan's work: > > There was a big gap between Kirti's last version and the overall review > comments, especially this one: > https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg576652.html Hi Kevin, > > Then there was no reply from Kirti whether she agreed with the comments > and was working on a new version. Sorry, we should ack on those comments when we have received them last time. > > Then we think we should jump in to keep the ball moving, based on > a fresh implementation according to recommended direction, i.e. focusing > on device state management instead of sticking to migration flow in kernel > API design. > > and also more importantly we provided kernel side implementation based > on Intel GVT-g to give the whole picture of both user/kernel side changes. > That should give people a better understanding of how those new APIs > are expected to be used by Qemu, and to be implemented by vendor driver. > > That is why Yan just shared her work. Really glad to see the v2 version works for you guys, appreciate for the driver side changes. > > Now it's great to see that Kirti is still actively working on this effort and is > also moving toward the right direction. Let's have a close look at two > implementations and then choose a cleaner one as base for future > enhancements. :-) Yes, the v3 has addressed all the comments / concerns raised in the v2, I think we should take a look and keep moving. Just a quick thought - would be possible / better to have Kirti focus on the QEMU patches and Yan take care GVT-g kernel driver side changes? This will give us the best testing coverage. Hope I don't step on anybody's toes here. ;-) Thanks, Neo > > Thanks > Kevin
> From: Neo Jia [mailto:cjia@nvidia.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 3:10 PM > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 05:52:53AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote: > > > From: Kirti Wankhede [mailto:kwankhede@nvidia.com] > > > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 1:25 PM > > > > > > On 2/20/2019 3:52 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > > > > * Kirti Wankhede (kwankhede@nvidia.com) wrote: > > > >> Add migration support for VFIO device > > > > > > > > Hi Kirti, > > > > Can you explain how this compares and works with Yan Zhao's > > > > set? > > > > > > This patch set is incremental version of my previous patch set: > > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/1000719/ > > > This takes care of the feedbacks received on previous version. > > > > > > This patch set is different than Yan Zhao's set. > > > > > > > I can help give some background about Yan's work: > > > > There was a big gap between Kirti's last version and the overall review > > comments, especially this one: > > https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg576652.html > > Hi Kevin, > > > > > Then there was no reply from Kirti whether she agreed with the comments > > and was working on a new version. > > Sorry, we should ack on those comments when we have received them last > time. > > > > > Then we think we should jump in to keep the ball moving, based on > > a fresh implementation according to recommended direction, i.e. focusing > > on device state management instead of sticking to migration flow in kernel > > API design. > > > > and also more importantly we provided kernel side implementation based > > on Intel GVT-g to give the whole picture of both user/kernel side changes. > > That should give people a better understanding of how those new APIs > > are expected to be used by Qemu, and to be implemented by vendor driver. > > > > That is why Yan just shared her work. > > Really glad to see the v2 version works for you guys, appreciate for the driver > side changes. > > > > > Now it's great to see that Kirti is still actively working on this effort and is > > also moving toward the right direction. Let's have a close look at two > > implementations and then choose a cleaner one as base for future > > enhancements. :-) > > Yes, the v3 has addressed all the comments / concerns raised in the v2, I think > we should take a look and keep moving. > > Just a quick thought - would be possible / better to have Kirti focus on the > QEMU > patches and Yan take care GVT-g kernel driver side changes? This will give us > the best testing coverage. Hope I don't step on anybody's toes here. ;-) > That is one option to be considered. For now let's focus on closing kernel interface definition. I saw Alex given lots of comments on both series. Hope we can discuss and converge on that part soon, before moving to next version. :-) Thanks Kevin