On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 10:39:15AM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 6, 2023 at 2:58 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 09:29:22AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 10:58 PM Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 09:54:57AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > >On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 03:30:35PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > > > >> On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 09:00:25AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > >> > On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 02:54:20PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > > > >> > > On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 08:41:54AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > >> > > > On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 01:06:44PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > vhost-vdpa IOCTLs (eg. VHOST_GET_VRING_BASE, VHOST_SET_VRING_BASE)
> > > > >> > > > > don't support packed virtqueue well yet, so let's filter the
> > > > >> > > > > VIRTIO_F_RING_PACKED feature for now in vhost_vdpa_get_features().
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > This way, even if the device supports it, we don't risk it being
> > > > >> > > > > negotiated, then the VMM is unable to set the vring state properly.
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > Fixes: 4c8cf31885f6 ("vhost: introduce vDPA-based backend")
> > > > >> > > > > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > >> > > > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >> > > > > ---
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > Notes:
> > > > >> > > > > This patch should be applied before the "[PATCH v2 0/3] vhost_vdpa:
> > > > >> > > > > better PACKED support" series [1] and backported in stable branches.
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > We can revert it when we are sure that everything is working with
> > > > >> > > > > packed virtqueues.
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >> > > > > Stefano
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/virtualization/20230424225031.18947-1-shannon.nelson@xxxxxxx/
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > I'm a bit lost here. So why am I merging "better PACKED support" then?
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > To really support packed virtqueue with vhost-vdpa, at that point we would
> > > > >> > > also have to revert this patch.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > I wasn't sure if you wanted to queue the series for this merge window.
> > > > >> > > In that case do you think it is better to send this patch only for stable
> > > > >> > > branches?
> > > > >> > > > Does this patch make them a NOP?
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Yep, after applying the "better PACKED support" series and being
> > > > >> > > sure that
> > > > >> > > the IOCTLs of vhost-vdpa support packed virtqueue, we should revert this
> > > > >> > > patch.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Let me know if you prefer a different approach.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > I'm concerned that QEMU uses vhost-vdpa IOCTLs thinking that the kernel
> > > > >> > > interprets them the right way, when it does not.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Thanks,
> > > > >> > > Stefano
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > If this fixes a bug can you add Fixes tags to each of them? Then it's ok
> > > > >> > to merge in this window. Probably easier than the elaborate
> > > > >> > mask/unmask dance.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> CCing Shannon (the original author of the "better PACKED support"
> > > > >> series).
> > > > >>
> > > > >> IIUC Shannon is going to send a v3 of that series to fix the
> > > > >> documentation, so Shannon can you also add the Fixes tags?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > >> Stefano
> > > > >
> > > > >Well this is in my tree already. Just reply with
> > > > >Fixes: <>
> > > > >to each and I will add these tags.
> > > >
> > > > I tried, but it is not easy since we added the support for packed
> > > > virtqueue in vdpa and vhost incrementally.
> > > >
> > > > Initially I was thinking of adding the same tag used here:
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: 4c8cf31885f6 ("vhost: introduce vDPA-based backend")
> > > >
> > > > Then I discovered that vq_state wasn't there, so I was thinking of
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: 530a5678bc00 ("vdpa: support packed virtqueue for set/get_vq_state()")
> > > >
> > > > So we would have to backport quite a few patches into the stable branches.
> > > > I don't know if it's worth it...
> > > >
> > > > I still think it is better to disable packed in the stable branches,
> > > > otherwise I have to make a list of all the patches we need.
> > > >
> > > > Any other ideas?
> > >
> > > AFAIK, except for vp_vdpa, pds seems to be the first parent that
> > > supports packed virtqueue. Users should not notice anything wrong if
> > > they don't use packed virtqueue. And the problem of vp_vdpa + packed
> > > virtqueue came since the day0 of vp_vdpa. It seems fine to do nothing
> > > I guess.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> >
> >
> > I have a question though, what if down the road there
> > is a new feature that needs more changes? It will be
> > broken too just like PACKED no?
> > Shouldn't vdpa have an allowlist of features it knows how
> > to support?
>
> It looks like we had it, but we took it out (by the way, we were
> enabling packed even though we didn't support it):
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=6234f80574d7569444d8718355fa2838e92b158b
>
> The only problem I see is that for each new feature we have to modify
> the kernel.
> Could we have new features that don't require handling by vhost-vdpa?
>
> Thanks,
> Stefano
Jason what do you say to reverting this?
--
MST
