On 2020/7/8 下午9:13, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
Hi Jason,
On 7/8/2020 4:52 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
On 2020/7/7 下午10:45, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
Hi Jason,
On 7/7/2020 3:17 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
On 2020/7/6 下午5:32, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
Hi Jason,
On 7/3/2020 12:46 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
On 2020/7/2 下午9:35, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
Hi Jason,
On 7/2/2020 3:40 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
On 2020/7/2 下午5:51, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 01:51:21PM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
This series enhances Linux Vhost support to enable SoC-to-SoC
communication over MMIO. This series enables rpmsg communication between
two SoCs using both PCIe RC<->EP and HOST1-NTB-HOST2
1) Modify vhost to use standard Linux driver model
2) Add support in vring to access virtqueue over MMIO
3) Add vhost client driver for rpmsg
4) Add PCIe RC driver (uses virtio) and PCIe EP driver (uses vhost) for
rpmsg communication between two SoCs connected to each other
5) Add NTB Virtio driver and NTB Vhost driver for rpmsg communication
between two SoCs connected via NTB
6) Add configfs to configure the components
UseCase1 :
VHOST RPMSG VIRTIO RPMSG
+ +
| |
| |
| |
| |
+-----v------+ +------v-------+
| Linux | | Linux |
| Endpoint | | Root Complex |
| <-----------------> |
| | | |
| SOC1 | | SOC2 |
+------------+ +--------------+
UseCase 2:
VHOST RPMSG VIRTIO RPMSG
+ +
| |
| |
| |
| |
+------v------+ +------v------+
| | | |
| HOST1 | | HOST2 |
| | | |
+------^------+ +------^------+
| |
| |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| +------v------+ +------v------+ |
| | | | | |
| | EP | | EP | |
| | CONTROLLER1 | | CONTROLLER2 | |
| | <-----------------------------------> | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | SoC With Multiple EP Instances | | |
| | | (Configured using NTB Function) | | |
| +-------------+ +-------------+ |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Software Layering:
The high-level SW layering should look something like below. This series
adds support only for RPMSG VHOST, however something similar should be
done for net and scsi. With that any vhost device (PCI, NTB, Platform
device, user) can use any of the vhost client driver.
+----------------+ +-----------+ +------------+ +----------+
| RPMSG VHOST | | NET VHOST | | SCSI VHOST | | X |
+-------^--------+ +-----^-----+ +-----^------+ +----^-----+
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
+-----------v-----------------v--------------v--------------v----------+
| VHOST CORE |
+--------^---------------^--------------------^------------------^-----+
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
+--------v-------+ +----v------+ +----------v----------+ +----v-----+
| PCI EPF VHOST | | NTB VHOST | |PLATFORM DEVICE VHOST| | X |
+----------------+ +-----------+ +---------------------+ +----------+
This was initially proposed here [1]
[1] ->
https://lore.kernel.org/r/2cf00ec4-1ed6-f66e-6897-006d1a5b6390@xxxxxx
I find this very interesting. A huge patchset so will take a bit
to review, but I certainly plan to do that. Thanks!
Yes, it would be better if there's a git branch for us to have a look.
I've pushed the branch
https://github.com/kishon/linux-wip.git vhost_rpmsg_pci_ntb_rfc
Thanks
Btw, I'm not sure I get the big picture, but I vaguely feel some of the
work is
duplicated with vDPA (e.g the epf transport or vhost bus).
This is about connecting two different HW systems both running Linux and
doesn't necessarily involve virtualization.
Right, this is something similar to VOP
(Documentation/misc-devices/mic/mic_overview.rst). The different is the
hardware I guess and VOP use userspace application to implement the device.
I'd also like to point out, this series tries to have communication between
two
SoCs in vendor agnostic way. Since this series solves for 2 usecases (PCIe
RC<->EP and NTB), for the NTB case it directly plugs into NTB framework and
any
of the HW in NTB below should be able to use a virtio-vhost communication
#ls drivers/ntb/hw/
amd epf idt intel mscc
And similarly for the PCIe RC<->EP communication, this adds a generic endpoint
function driver and hence any SoC that supports configurable PCIe endpoint can
use virtio-vhost communication
# ls drivers/pci/controller/dwc/*ep*
drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-ep.c
drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-uniphier-ep.c
drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-layerscape-ep.c
Thanks for those backgrounds.
So there is no guest or host as in
virtualization but two entirely different systems connected via PCIe cable,
one
acting as guest and one as host. So one system will provide virtio
functionality reserving memory for virtqueues and the other provides vhost
functionality providing a way to access the virtqueues in virtio memory.
One is
source and the other is sink and there is no intermediate entity. (vhost was
probably intermediate entity in virtualization?)
(Not a native English speaker) but "vhost" could introduce some confusion for
me since it was use for implementing virtio backend for userspace drivers. I
guess "vringh" could be better.
Initially I had named this vringh but later decided to choose vhost instead of
vringh. vhost is still a virtio backend (not necessarily userspace) though it
now resides in an entirely different system. Whatever virtio is for a frontend
system, vhost can be that for a backend system. vring can be for accessing
virtqueue and can be used either in frontend or backend.
Ok.
Have you considered to implement these through vDPA?
IIUC vDPA only provides an interface to userspace and an in-kernel rpmsg
driver
or vhost net driver is not provided.
The HW connection looks something like https://pasteboard.co/JfMVVHC.jpg
(usecase2 above),
I see.
all the boards run Linux. The middle board provides NTB
functionality and board on either side provides virtio/vhost
functionality and
transfer data using rpmsg.
So I wonder whether it's worthwhile for a new bus. Can we use the existed
virtio-bus/drivers? It might work as, except for the epf transport, we can
introduce a epf "vhost" transport driver.
IMHO we'll need two buses one for frontend and other for backend because the
two components can then co-operate/interact with each other to provide a
functionality. Though both will seemingly provide similar callbacks, they are
both provide symmetrical or complimentary funcitonality and need not be
same or
identical.
Having the same bus can also create sequencing issues.
If you look at virtio_dev_probe() of virtio_bus
device_features = dev->config->get_features(dev);
Now if we use same bus for both front-end and back-end, both will try to
get_features when there has been no set_features. Ideally vhost device should
be initialized first with the set of features it supports. Vhost and virtio
should use "status" and "features" complimentarily and not identically.
Yes, but there's no need for doing status/features passthrough in epf vhost
drivers.b
virtio device (or frontend) cannot be initialized before vhost device (or
backend) gets initialized with data such as features. Similarly vhost
(backend)
cannot access virqueues or buffers before virtio (frontend) sets
VIRTIO_CONFIG_S_DRIVER_OK whereas that requirement is not there for virtio as
the physical memory for virtqueues are created by virtio (frontend).
epf vhost drivers need to implement two devices: vhost(vringh) device and
virtio device (which is a mediated device). The vhost(vringh) device is doing
feature negotiation with the virtio device via RC/EP or NTB. The virtio device
is doing feature negotiation with local virtio drivers. If there're feature
mismatch, epf vhost drivers and do mediation between them.
Here epf vhost should be initialized with a set of features for it to negotiate
either as vhost device or virtio device no? Where should the initial feature
set for epf vhost come from?
I think it can work as:
1) Having an initial features (hard coded in the code) set X in epf vhost
2) Using this X for both virtio device and vhost(vringh) device
3) local virtio driver will negotiate with virtio device with feature set Y
4) remote virtio driver will negotiate with vringh device with feature set Z
5) mediate between feature Y and feature Z since both Y and Z are a subset of X
okay. I'm also thinking if we could have configfs for configuring this. Anyways
we could find different approaches of configuring this.
Yes, and I think some management API is needed even in the design of
your "Software Layering". In that figure, rpmsg vhost need some pre-set
or hard-coded features.
It will have virtqueues but only used for the communication between itself
and
uppter virtio driver. And it will have vringh queues which will be probe by
virtio epf transport drivers. And it needs to do datacopy between
virtqueue and
vringh queues.
It works like:
virtio drivers <- virtqueue/virtio-bus -> epf vhost drivers <- vringh
queue/epf>
The advantages is that there's no need for writing new buses and drivers.
I think this will work however there is an addtional copy between vringh queue
and virtqueue,
I think not? E.g in use case 1), if we stick to virtio bus, we will have:
virtio-rpmsg (EP) <- virtio ring(1) -> epf vhost driver (EP) <- virtio ring(2)
-> virtio pci (RC) <-> virtio rpmsg (RC)
IIUC epf vhost driver (EP) will access virtio ring(2) using vringh?
Yes.
And virtio
ring(2) is created by virtio pci (RC).
Yes.
What epf vhost driver did is to read from virtio ring(1) about the buffer len
and addr and them DMA to Linux(RC)?
okay, I made some optimization here where vhost-rpmsg using a helper writes a
buffer from rpmsg's upper layer directly to remote Linux (RC) as against here
were it has to be first written to virtio ring (1).
Thinking how this would look for NTB
virtio-rpmsg (HOST1) <- virtio ring(1) -> NTB(HOST1) <-> NTB(HOST2) <- virtio
ring(2) -> virtio-rpmsg (HOST2)
Here the NTB(HOST1) will access the virtio ring(2) using vringh?
Yes, I think so it needs to use vring to access virtio ring (1) as well.
NTB(HOST1) and virtio ring(1) will be in the same system. So it doesn't have to
use vring. virtio ring(1) is by the virtio device the NTB(HOST1) creates.
Right.
Do you also think this will work seamlessly with virtio_net.c, virtio_blk.c?
Yes.
okay, I haven't looked at this but the backend of virtio_blk should access an
actual storage device no?
Good point, for non-peer device like storage. There's probably no need
for it to be registered on the virtio bus and it might be better to
behave as you proposed.
Just to make sure I understand the design, how is VHOST SCSI expected to
work in your proposal, does it have a device for file as a backend?
I'd like to get clarity on two things in the approach you suggested, one is
features (since epf vhost should ideally be transparent to any virtio driver)
We can have have an array of pre-defined features indexed by virtio device id
in the code.
and the other is how certain inputs to virtio device such as number of buffers
be determined.
We can start from hard coded the value like 256, or introduce some API for user
to change the value.
Thanks again for your suggestions!
You're welcome.
Note that I just want to check whether or not we can reuse the virtio
bus/driver. It's something similar to what you proposed in Software Layering
but we just replace "vhost core" with "virtio bus" and move the vhost core
below epf/ntb/platform transport.
Got it. My initial design was based on my understanding of your comments [1].
Yes, but that's just for a networking device. If we want something more
generic, it may require more thought (bus etc).
I'll try to create something based on your proposed design here.
Sure, but for coding, we'd better wait for other's opinion here.
Thanks
Regards
Kishon
[1] ->
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/59982499-0fc1-2e39-9ff9-993fb4dd7dcc@xxxxxxxxxx/
Thanks
Regards
Kishon
in some cases adds latency because of forwarding interrupts
between vhost and virtio driver, vhost drivers providing features (which means
it has to be aware of which virtio driver will be connected).
virtio drivers (front end) generally access the buffers from it's local memory
but when in backend it can access over MMIO (like PCI EPF or NTB) or
userspace.
Does this make sense?
Two copies in my opinion is an issue but lets get others opinions as well.
Sure.
Thanks for your suggestions!
You're welcome.
Thanks
Regards
Kishon
Thanks
Thanks
Kishon
Thanks
Kishon Vijay Abraham I (22):
vhost: Make _feature_ bits a property of vhost device
vhost: Introduce standard Linux driver model in VHOST
vhost: Add ops for the VHOST driver to configure VHOST device
vringh: Add helpers to access vring in MMIO
vhost: Add MMIO helpers for operations on vhost virtqueue
vhost: Introduce configfs entry for configuring VHOST
virtio_pci: Use request_threaded_irq() instead of request_irq()
rpmsg: virtio_rpmsg_bus: Disable receive virtqueue callback when
reading messages
rpmsg: Introduce configfs entry for configuring rpmsg
rpmsg: virtio_rpmsg_bus: Add Address Service Notification support
rpmsg: virtio_rpmsg_bus: Move generic rpmsg structure to
rpmsg_internal.h
virtio: Add ops to allocate and free buffer
rpmsg: virtio_rpmsg_bus: Use virtio_alloc_buffer() and
virtio_free_buffer()
rpmsg: Add VHOST based remote processor messaging bus
samples/rpmsg: Setup delayed work to send message
samples/rpmsg: Wait for address to be bound to rpdev for sending
message
rpmsg.txt: Add Documentation to configure rpmsg using configfs
virtio_pci: Add VIRTIO driver for VHOST on Configurable PCIe
Endpoint
device
PCI: endpoint: Add EP function driver to provide VHOST interface
NTB: Add a new NTB client driver to implement VIRTIO functionality
NTB: Add a new NTB client driver to implement VHOST functionality
NTB: Describe the ntb_virtio and ntb_vhost client in the
documentation
Documentation/driver-api/ntb.rst | 11 +
Documentation/rpmsg.txt | 56 +
drivers/ntb/Kconfig | 18 +
drivers/ntb/Makefile | 2 +
drivers/ntb/ntb_vhost.c | 776 +++++++++++
drivers/ntb/ntb_virtio.c | 853 ++++++++++++
drivers/ntb/ntb_virtio.h | 56 +
drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/Kconfig | 11 +
drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/Makefile | 1 +
.../pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-vhost.c | 1144
++++++++++++++++
drivers/rpmsg/Kconfig | 10 +
drivers/rpmsg/Makefile | 3 +-
drivers/rpmsg/rpmsg_cfs.c | 394 ++++++
drivers/rpmsg/rpmsg_core.c | 7 +
drivers/rpmsg/rpmsg_internal.h | 136 ++
drivers/rpmsg/vhost_rpmsg_bus.c | 1151
+++++++++++++++++
drivers/rpmsg/virtio_rpmsg_bus.c | 184 ++-
drivers/vhost/Kconfig | 1 +
drivers/vhost/Makefile | 2 +-
drivers/vhost/net.c | 10 +-
drivers/vhost/scsi.c | 24 +-
drivers/vhost/test.c | 17 +-
drivers/vhost/vdpa.c | 2 +-
drivers/vhost/vhost.c | 730 ++++++++++-
drivers/vhost/vhost_cfs.c | 341 +++++
drivers/vhost/vringh.c | 332 +++++
drivers/vhost/vsock.c | 20 +-
drivers/virtio/Kconfig | 9 +
drivers/virtio/Makefile | 1 +
drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c | 25 +-
drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_epf.c | 670 ++++++++++
include/linux/mod_devicetable.h | 6 +
include/linux/rpmsg.h | 6 +
{drivers/vhost => include/linux}/vhost.h | 132 +-
include/linux/virtio.h | 3 +
include/linux/virtio_config.h | 42 +
include/linux/vringh.h | 46 +
samples/rpmsg/rpmsg_client_sample.c | 32 +-
tools/virtio/virtio_test.c | 2 +-
39 files changed, 7083 insertions(+), 183 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 drivers/ntb/ntb_vhost.c
create mode 100644 drivers/ntb/ntb_virtio.c
create mode 100644 drivers/ntb/ntb_virtio.h
create mode 100644 drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-vhost.c
create mode 100644 drivers/rpmsg/rpmsg_cfs.c
create mode 100644 drivers/rpmsg/vhost_rpmsg_bus.c
create mode 100644 drivers/vhost/vhost_cfs.c
create mode 100644 drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_epf.c
rename {drivers/vhost => include/linux}/vhost.h (66%)
--
2.17.1
