On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 9:21 AM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 12:41:50PM +0200, Eugenio Pérez wrote:
> > SVQ may run or not in a device depending on runtime conditions (for
> > example, if the device can move CVQ to its own group or not).
> >
> > Allocate the resources unconditionally, and decide later if to use them
> > or not.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Eugenio Pérez <eperezma@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> I applied this for now but I really dislike it that we are wasting
> resources like this.
>
> Can I just drop this patch from the series? It looks like things
> will just work anyway ...
>
It will not work simply dropping this patch, because new code expects
SVQ vrings to be already allocated. But that is doable with more work.
> I know, when one works on a feature it seems like everyone should
> enable it - but the reality is qemu already works quite well for
> most users and it is our resposibility to first do no harm.
>
I agree, but then it is better to drop this series entirely for this
merge window. I think it is justified to add it at the beginning of
the next merge window, and to give more time for testing and adding
more features actually.
However, I think shadow CVQ should start by default as long as the
device has the right set of both virtio and vdpa features. Otherwise,
we need another cmdline parameter, something like x-cvq-svq, and the
update of other layers like libvirt.
Thanks!
>
> > ---
> > hw/virtio/vhost-vdpa.c | 33 +++++++++++++++------------------
> > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/hw/virtio/vhost-vdpa.c b/hw/virtio/vhost-vdpa.c
> > index 7f0ff4df5b..d966966131 100644
> > --- a/hw/virtio/vhost-vdpa.c
> > +++ b/hw/virtio/vhost-vdpa.c
> > @@ -410,6 +410,21 @@ static int vhost_vdpa_init_svq(struct vhost_dev *hdev, struct vhost_vdpa *v,
> > int r;
> > bool ok;
> >
> > + shadow_vqs = g_ptr_array_new_full(hdev->nvqs, vhost_svq_free);
> > + for (unsigned n = 0; n < hdev->nvqs; ++n) {
> > + g_autoptr(VhostShadowVirtqueue) svq;
> > +
> > + svq = vhost_svq_new(v->iova_tree, v->shadow_vq_ops,
> > + v->shadow_vq_ops_opaque);
> > + if (unlikely(!svq)) {
> > + error_setg(errp, "Cannot create svq %u", n);
> > + return -1;
> > + }
> > + g_ptr_array_add(shadow_vqs, g_steal_pointer(&svq));
> > + }
> > +
> > + v->shadow_vqs = g_steal_pointer(&shadow_vqs);
> > +
> > if (!v->shadow_vqs_enabled) {
> > return 0;
> > }
> > @@ -426,20 +441,6 @@ static int vhost_vdpa_init_svq(struct vhost_dev *hdev, struct vhost_vdpa *v,
> > return -1;
> > }
> >
> > - shadow_vqs = g_ptr_array_new_full(hdev->nvqs, vhost_svq_free);
> > - for (unsigned n = 0; n < hdev->nvqs; ++n) {
> > - g_autoptr(VhostShadowVirtqueue) svq;
> > -
> > - svq = vhost_svq_new(v->iova_tree, v->shadow_vq_ops,
> > - v->shadow_vq_ops_opaque);
> > - if (unlikely(!svq)) {
> > - error_setg(errp, "Cannot create svq %u", n);
> > - return -1;
> > - }
> > - g_ptr_array_add(shadow_vqs, g_steal_pointer(&svq));
> > - }
> > -
> > - v->shadow_vqs = g_steal_pointer(&shadow_vqs);
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > @@ -580,10 +581,6 @@ static void vhost_vdpa_svq_cleanup(struct vhost_dev *dev)
> > struct vhost_vdpa *v = dev->opaque;
> > size_t idx;
> >
> > - if (!v->shadow_vqs) {
> > - return;
> > - }
> > -
> > for (idx = 0; idx < v->shadow_vqs->len; ++idx) {
> > vhost_svq_stop(g_ptr_array_index(v->shadow_vqs, idx));
> > }
> > --
> > 2.31.1
>
