On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 12:56:06PM +0100, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote:
> 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.
Not sure what "then" means. You tell me - should I drop it?
> 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!
OK maybe that is not too bad.
> >
> > > ---
> > > 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
> >
