On Sat, Jun 22, 2024 at 06:07:35AM +0000, Wang, Wei W wrote:
> On Thursday, June 20, 2024 5:01 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 04:39:38PM +0800, Xuan Zhuo wrote:
> > > On Thu, 20 Jun 2024 04:02:45 -0400, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 05:15:29PM +0800, Xuan Zhuo wrote:
> > > > > commit 6457f126c888 ("virtio: support reserved vqs") introduced
> > > > > this support. Multiqueue virtio-net use 2N as ctrl vq finally, so
> > > > > the logic doesn't apply. And not one uses this.
> > > > >
> > > > > On the other side, that makes some trouble for us to refactor the
> > > > > find_vqs() params.
> > > > >
> > > > > So I remove this support.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Acked-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Acked-by: Eric Farman <farman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> # s390
> > > > > Acked-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I don't mind, but this patchset is too big already.
> > > > Why do we need to make this part of this patchset?
> > >
> > >
> > > If some the pointers of the names is NULL, then in the virtio ring, we
> > > will have a trouble to index from the arrays(names, callbacks...).
> > > Becasue that the idx of the vq is not the index of these arrays.
> > >
> > > If the names is [NULL, "rx", "tx"], the first vq is the "rx", but
> > > index of the vq is zero, but the index of the info of this vq inside the arrays is
> > 1.
> >
> >
> > Ah. So actually, it used to work.
> >
> > What this should refer to is
> >
> > commit ddbeac07a39a81d82331a312d0578fab94fccbf1
> > Author: Wei Wang <wei.w.wang@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Fri Dec 28 10:26:25 2018 +0800
> >
> > virtio_pci: use queue idx instead of array idx to set up the vq
> >
> > When find_vqs, there will be no vq[i] allocation if its corresponding
> > names[i] is NULL. For example, the caller may pass in names[i] (i=4)
> > with names[2] being NULL because the related feature bit is turned off,
> > so technically there are 3 queues on the device, and name[4] should
> > correspond to the 3rd queue on the device.
> >
> > So we use queue_idx as the queue index, which is increased only when the
> > queue exists.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Wei Wang <wei.w.wang@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
>
> The approach was taken to prevent the creation (by the device) of unnecessary
> queues that would remain unused when the feature bit is turned off. Otherwise,
> the device is required to create all conditional queues regardless of their necessity.
>
> >
> > Which made it so setting names NULL actually does not reserve a vq.
>
> If there is a need for an explicit queue reservation, it might be feasible to assign
> a specific name to the queue(e.g. "reserved")?
> This will require the device to have the reserved queue added.
That's quite a hack, NULL as a special value is much more
idiomatic.
Given driver and qemu are both non spec compliant but *in splightly
different ways* I think we should just fix both the driver and qemu to
be spec compliant.
> >
> > But I worry about non pci transports - there's a chance they used a different
> > index with the balloon. Did you test some of these?
> >
> > --
> > MST
> >
