On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 13:09:14 -0700 Siwei Liu <loseweigh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 3:54 AM, Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 10:06:07 -0700 > > Siwei Liu <loseweigh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 4:48 AM, Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 18:57:11 -0700 > >> > Siwei Liu <loseweigh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > I'm a bit confused here. What, exactly, ties the two devices together? > >> > >> The group UUID. Since QEMU VFIO dvice does not have insight of MAC > >> address (which it doesn't have to), the association between VFIO > >> passthrough and standby must be specificed for QEMU to understand the > >> relationship with this model. Note, standby feature is no longer > >> required to be exposed under this model. > > > > Isn't that a bit limiting, though? > > > > With this model, you can probably tie a vfio-pci device and a > > virtio-net-pci device together. But this will fail if you have > > different transports: Consider tying together a vfio-pci device and a > > virtio-net-ccw device on s390, for example. The standby feature bit is > > on the virtio-net level and should not have any dependency on the > > transport used. > > Probably we'd limit the support for grouping to virtio-net-pci device > and vfio-pci device only. For virtio-net-pci, as you might see with > Venu's patch, we store the group UUID on the config space of > virtio-pci, which is only applicable to PCI transport. > > If virtio-net-ccw needs to support the same, I think similar grouping > interface should be defined on the VirtIO CCW transport. I think the > current implementation of the Linux failover driver assumes that it's > SR-IOV VF with same MAC address which the virtio-net-pci needs to pair > with, and that the PV path is on same PF without needing to update > network of the port-MAC association change. If we need to extend the > grouping mechanism to virtio-net-ccw, it has to pass such failover > mode to virtio driver specifically through some other option I guess. Hm, I've just spent some time reading the Linux failover code and I did not really find much pci-related magic in there (other than checking for a pci device in net_failover_slave_pre_register). We also seem to look for a matching device by MAC only. What magic am I missing? Is the look-for-uuid handling supposed to happen in the host only? > >> > If libvirt already has the knowledge that it should manage the two as a > >> > couple, why do we need the group id (or something else for other > >> > architectures)? (Maybe I'm simply missing something because I'm not > >> > that familiar with pci.) > >> > >> The idea is to have QEMU control the visibility and enumeration order > >> of the passthrough VFIO for the failover scenario. Hotplug can be one > >> way to achieve it, and perhaps there's other way around also. The > >> group ID is not just for QEMU to couple devices, it's also helpful to > >> guest too as grouping using MAC address is just not safe. > > > > Sorry about dragging mainframes into this, but this will only work for > > homogenous device coupling, not for heterogenous. Consider my vfio-pci > > + virtio-net-ccw example again: The guest cannot find out that the two > > belong together by checking some group ID, it has to either use the MAC > > or some needs-to-be-architectured property. > > > > Alternatively, we could propose that mechanism as pci-only, which means > > we can rely on mechanisms that won't necessarily work on non-pci > > transports. (FWIW, I don't see a use case for using vfio-ccw to pass > > through a network card anytime in the near future, due to the nature of > > network cards currently in use on s390.) > > Yes, let's do this just for PCI transport (homogenous) for now. But why? Using pci for passthrough to make things easier (and because there's not really a use case), sure. But I really don't want to restrict this to virtio-pci only. > >> In the model of (b), I think it essentially turns hotplug to one of > >> mechanisms for QEMU to control the visibility. The libvirt can still > >> manage the hotplug of individual devices during live migration or in > >> normal situation to hot add/remove devices. Though the visibility of > >> the VFIO is under the controll of QEMU, and it's possible that the hot > >> add/remove request does not involve actual hot plug activity in guest > >> at all. > > > > That depends on how you model visibility, I guess. You'll probably want > > to stop traffic flowing through one or the other of the cards; would > > link down or similar be enough for the virtio device? > > I'm not sure if it is a good idea. The guest user will see two devices > with same MAC but one of them is down. Do you expect user to use it or > not? And since the guest is going to be migrated, we need to unplug a > broken VF from guest before migrating, why do we bother plugging in > this useless VF at the first place? I was thinking about using hotunplugging only over migration and doing the link up only after feature negotiation has finished, but that is probably too complicated. Let's stick to hotplug for simplicity's sake. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
