On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 10:51:06AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>
>
> On 2018年10月15日 10:43, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 10:22:33AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2018年10月13日 01:23, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 10:32:44PM +0800, Tiwei Bie wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 11:28:09AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > > @@ -1367,10 +1397,48 @@ long vhost_vring_ioctl(struct vhost_dev *d, unsigned int ioctl, void __user *arg
> > > > > > vq->last_avail_idx = s.num;
> > > > > > /* Forget the cached index value. */
> > > > > > vq->avail_idx = vq->last_avail_idx;
> > > > > > + if (vhost_has_feature(vq, VIRTIO_F_RING_PACKED)) {
> > > > > > + vq->last_avail_wrap_counter = wrap_counter;
> > > > > > + vq->avail_wrap_counter = vq->last_avail_wrap_counter;
> > > > > > + }
> > > > > > break;
> > > > > > case VHOST_GET_VRING_BASE:
> > > > > > s.index = idx;
> > > > > > s.num = vq->last_avail_idx;
> > > > > > + if (vhost_has_feature(vq, VIRTIO_F_RING_PACKED))
> > > > > > + s.num |= vq->last_avail_wrap_counter << 31;
> > > > > > + if (copy_to_user(argp, &s, sizeof(s)))
> > > > > > + r = -EFAULT;
> > > > > > + break;
> > > > > > + case VHOST_SET_VRING_USED_BASE:
> > > > > > + /* Moving base with an active backend?
> > > > > > + * You don't want to do that.
> > > > > > + */
> > > > > > + if (vq->private_data) {
> > > > > > + r = -EBUSY;
> > > > > > + break;
> > > > > > + }
> > > > > > + if (copy_from_user(&s, argp, sizeof(s))) {
> > > > > > + r = -EFAULT;
> > > > > > + break;
> > > > > > + }
> > > > > > + if (vhost_has_feature(vq, VIRTIO_F_RING_PACKED)) {
> > > > > > + wrap_counter = s.num >> 31;
> > > > > > + s.num &= ~(1 << 31);
> > > > > > + }
> > > > > > + if (s.num > 0xffff) {
> > > > > > + r = -EINVAL;
> > > > > > + break;
> > > > > > + }
> > > > > Do we want to put wrap_counter at bit 15?
> > > > I think I second that - seems to be consistent with
> > > > e.g. event suppression structure and the proposed
> > > > extension to driver notifications.
> > > Ok, I assumes packed virtqueue support 64K but looks not. I can change it to
> > > bit 15 and GET_VRING_BASE need to be changed as well.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > If put wrap_counter at bit 31, the check (s.num > 0xffff)
> > > > > won't be able to catch the illegal index 0x8000~0xffff for
> > > > > packed ring.
> > > > >
> > > Do we need to clarify this in the spec?
> > Isn't this all internal vhost stuff?
>
> I meant the illegal index 0x8000-0xffff.
It does say packed virtqueues support up to 2 15 entries each.
But yes we can add a requirement that devices do not expose
larger rings. Split does not support 2**16 either, right?
With 2**16 enties avail index becomes 0 and ring looks empty.
>
> >
> > > > > > + vq->last_used_idx = s.num;
> > > > > > + if (vhost_has_feature(vq, VIRTIO_F_RING_PACKED))
> > > > > > + vq->last_used_wrap_counter = wrap_counter;
> > > > > > + break;
> > > > > > + case VHOST_GET_VRING_USED_BASE:
> > > > > Do we need the new VHOST_GET_VRING_USED_BASE and
> > > > > VHOST_SET_VRING_USED_BASE ops?
> > > > >
> > > > > We are going to merge below series in DPDK:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://patches.dpdk.org/patch/45874/
> > > > >
> > > > > We may need to reach an agreement first.
> > > If we agree that 64K virtqueue won't be supported, I'm ok with either.
> > Well the spec says right at the beginning:
> >
> > Packed virtqueues support up to 2 15 entries each.
>
> Ok. I get it.
>
> Then I can change vhost to match what dpdk did.
>
> Thanks
>
> >
> >
> > > Btw the code assumes used_wrap_counter is equal to avail_wrap_counter which
> > > looks wrong?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > > > > + s.index = idx;
> > > > > > + s.num = vq->last_used_idx;
> > > > > > + if (vhost_has_feature(vq, VIRTIO_F_RING_PACKED))
> > > > > > + s.num |= vq->last_used_wrap_counter << 31;
> > > > > > if (copy_to_user(argp, &s, sizeof s))
> > > > > > r = -EFAULT;
> > > > > > break;
> > > > > [...]
