Re: [PATCH] Add shared memory PCI device that shares a memory object betweens VMs

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




Hi Anthony and Avi,

Anthony Liguori wrote:
Avi Kivity wrote:
Anthony Liguori wrote:
Hi Cam,


I would suggest two design changes to make here. The first is that I think you should use virtio.

I disagree with this. While virtio is excellent at exporting guest memory, it isn't so good at importing another guest's memory.

First we need to separate static memory sharing and dynamic memory sharing. Static memory sharing has to be configured on start up. I think in practice, static memory sharing is not terribly interesting except for maybe embedded environments.

I think there is value for static memory sharing. It can be used for fast, simple synchronization and communication between guests (and the host) that use need to share data that needs to be updated frequently (such as a simple cache or notification system). It may not be a common task, but I think static sharing has its place and that's what this device is for at this point.

Dynamically memory sharing requires bidirectional communication in order to establish mappings and tear down mappings. You'll eventually recreate virtio once you've implemented this communication mechanism.

The second is that I think instead of relying on mapping in device memory to the guest, you should have the guest allocate it's own memory to dedicate to sharing.

That's not what you describe below. You're having the guest allocate parts of its address space that happen to be used by RAM, and overlaying those parts with the shared memory.

But from the guest's perspective, it's RAM is being used for memory sharing.

If you're clever, you could start a guest with -mem-path and then use this mechanism to map a portion of one guest's memory into another guest without either guest ever knowing who "owns" the memory and with exactly the same driver on both.

Right now, you've got a bit of a hole in your implementation because you only support files that are powers-of-two in size even though that's not documented/enforced. This is a limitation of PCI resource regions.

While the BAR needs to be a power of two, I don't think the RAM backing it needs to be.

Then you need a side channel to communicate the information to the guest.

Couldn't one of the registers in BAR0 be used to store the actual (non-power-of-two) size?

Also, the PCI memory hole is limited in size today which is going to put an upper bound on the amount of memory you could ever map into a guest.

Today. We could easily lift this restriction by supporting 64-bit BARs. It would probably take only a few lines of code.

Since you're using qemu_ram_alloc() also, it makes hotplug unworkable too since qemu_ram_alloc() is a static allocation from a contiguous heap.

We need to fix this anyway, for memory hotplug.

It's going to be hard to "fix" with TCG.

If you used virtio, what you could do is provide a ring queue that was used to communicate a series of requests/response. The exchange might look like this:

guest: REQ discover memory region
host: RSP memory region id: 4 size: 8k
guest: REQ map region id: 4 size: 8k: sgl: {(addr=43000, size=4k), (addr=944000,size=4k)}
host: RSP mapped region id: 4
guest: REQ notify region id: 4
host: RSP notify region id: 4
guest: REQ poll region id: 4
host: RSP poll region id: 4

That looks significantly more complex.

It's also supporting dynamic shared memory. If you do use BARs, then perhaps you'd just do PCI hotplug to make things dynamic.


And the REQ/RSP order does not have to be in series like this. In general, you need one entry on the queue to poll for new memory regions, one entry for each mapped region to poll for incoming notification, and then the remaining entries can be used to send short-lived requests/responses.

It's important that the REQ map takes a scatter/gather list of physical addresses because after running for a while, it's unlikely that you'll be able to allocate any significant size of contiguous memory.

From a QEMU perspective, you would do memory sharing by waiting for a map REQ from the guest and then you would complete the request by doing an mmap(MAP_FIXED) with the appropriate parameters into phys_ram_base.

That will fragment the vma list. And what do you do when you unmap the region?

How does a 256M guest map 1G of shared memory?

It doesn't but it couldn't today either b/c of the 32-bit BARs.


Cam
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux