<html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"> </head> <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/18/19 10:29 AM, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote: </div> <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:161d6e05-6a38-262f-56da-7824258b14ef@gmail.com"> <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"> Hi, I have a PoC that enables partial coldplug assignment of multifunction PCI devices with managed mode. At this moment, Libvirt can't handle this scenario - the code will detach only the hostdevs from the XML, when in fact the whole IOMMU needs to be detached. This can be verified by the fact that Libvirt handles the unmanaged scenario well, as long as the user detaches the whole IOMMU beforehand. I have played with 2 approaches. The one I am planning to contribute back is a change inside virHostdevGetPCIHostDeviceList(), that adds the extra PCI devices for detach/re-attach in case a PCI Multifunction device in managed mode is presented in the XML. </blockquote> If you're thinking of doing that automatically, then I should warn you that we had discussed that a long time ago, and decided that it was a bad idea to do it because it was likely someone would, e.g. try to assign an audio device to their guest that happened to be one function on a multifunction device that also contained a disk controller (or some other device) that the host needed for proper operation. It may be that in *your* particular case, you understand that the functions you don't want to assign to the guest are not otherwise used, and it's not dangerous to suddenly detach them from their host driver. But you can't assume that will always be the case. If you *really* can't accept just assigning all the devices in that IOMMU group to the guest (thus making them all explicitly listed in the config, and obvious to the administrator that they won't be available on the host) and simply not using them, then you either need to separately detach those particular functions from the host, or come up with a way of having the domain config explicitly list them as "detached from the host but not actually attached to the guest". <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:161d6e05-6a38-262f-56da-7824258b14ef@gmail.com"> Now, there's a catch. Inside both virHostdevPreparePCIDevices() and virHostdevReAttachPCIDevices() there are code to save/restore the network configuration for SR-IOV devices. These functions iterates in the hostdevs list, instead of the pcidevs list I'm changing. The final result, given that the current conditions used for SR-IOV matches the conditions for multifunction PCI devices as well, is that not all virtual functions will get their network configuration saved/restored. </blockquote> If you're not going to use a device (which is implied by the fact that it's not in the hostdevs list) then nothing about its network config will change, so there is no reason to save/restore it. <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:161d6e05-6a38-262f-56da-7824258b14ef@gmail.com"> For example, a guest that uses 3 of 4 functions of a PCI MultiFunction card, let's say functions 0,1 and 3. The code will handle the detach of all the IOMMU, including the function 2 that isn't declared in the XML.</blockquote> Again, the above sentence implies that you're wanting to make this completely automatic, which we previously decided was something we didn't want to do. <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:161d6e05-6a38-262f-56da-7824258b14ef@gmail.com"> However, since function 2 isn't a hostdev, its network config will not be restored after the VM shutdown. </blockquote> You're talking about something that will never occur - on every SRIOV network card I've ever seen each VF is in its own IOMMU group, and can be assigned to a guest independent of what's done with any other VF. I've never seen a case (except maybe once with a newly released motherboard that had broken IOMMU firmware(?)) where a VF was in the same IOMMU group as any other device. <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:161d6e05-6a38-262f-56da-7824258b14ef@gmail.com"> Now comes the question: how much effort should be spent into making the network config of all the functions be restored? Is this a blocker for the whole code to be accepted or, given it is proper documented somewhere, it can be done later on?</blockquote> </body> </html>