On 2018/10/16 下午9:58, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
On 10/15/2018 04:22 AM, Jason Wang wrote:
On 2018年10月13日 01:23, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 10:32:44PM +0800, Tiwei Bie wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 11:28:09AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
[...]
@@ -1367,10 +1397,48 @@ long vhost_vring_ioctl(struct vhost_dev
*d, unsigned int ioctl, void __user *arg
vq->last_avail_idx = s.num;
/* Forget the cached index value. */
vq->avail_idx = vq->last_avail_idx;
+ if (vhost_has_feature(vq, VIRTIO_F_RING_PACKED)) {
+ vq->last_avail_wrap_counter = wrap_counter;
+ vq->avail_wrap_counter = vq->last_avail_wrap_counter;
+ }
break;
case VHOST_GET_VRING_BASE:
s.index = idx;
s.num = vq->last_avail_idx;
+ if (vhost_has_feature(vq, VIRTIO_F_RING_PACKED))
+ s.num |= vq->last_avail_wrap_counter << 31;
+ if (copy_to_user(argp, &s, sizeof(s)))
+ r = -EFAULT;
+ break;
+ case VHOST_SET_VRING_USED_BASE:
+ /* Moving base with an active backend?
+ * You don't want to do that.
+ */
+ if (vq->private_data) {
+ r = -EBUSY;
+ break;
+ }
+ if (copy_from_user(&s, argp, sizeof(s))) {
+ r = -EFAULT;
+ break;
+ }
+ if (vhost_has_feature(vq, VIRTIO_F_RING_PACKED)) {
+ wrap_counter = s.num >> 31;
+ s.num &= ~(1 << 31);
+ }
+ if (s.num > 0xffff) {
+ r = -EINVAL;
+ break;
+ }
Do we want to put wrap_counter at bit 15?
I think I second that - seems to be consistent with
e.g. event suppression structure and the proposed
extension to driver notifications.
Ok, I assumes packed virtqueue support 64K but looks not. I can
change it to bit 15 and GET_VRING_BASE need to be changed as well.
If put wrap_counter at bit 31, the check (s.num > 0xffff)
won't be able to catch the illegal index 0x8000~0xffff for
packed ring.
Do we need to clarify this in the spec?
+ vq->last_used_idx = s.num;
+ if (vhost_has_feature(vq, VIRTIO_F_RING_PACKED))
+ vq->last_used_wrap_counter = wrap_counter;
+ break;
+ case VHOST_GET_VRING_USED_BASE:
Do we need the new VHOST_GET_VRING_USED_BASE and
VHOST_SET_VRING_USED_BASE ops?
We are going to merge below series in DPDK:
http://patches.dpdk.org/patch/45874/
We may need to reach an agreement first.
If we agree that 64K virtqueue won't be supported, I'm ok with either.
I'm fine to put wrap_counter at bit 15.
I will post a new version of the DPDK series soon.
Btw the code assumes used_wrap_counter is equal to avail_wrap_counter
which looks wrong?
For split ring, we used to set the last_used_idx to the same value as
last_avail_idx as VHOST_USER_GET_VRING_BASE cannot be called while the
ring is being processed, so their value is always the same at the time
the request is handled.
I may miss something, but it looks to me we should sync last_used_idx
from used_idx.
Thanks
I kept the same behavior for packed ring, and so the wrap counter have
to be the same.
Regards,
Maxime
Thanks
+ s.index = idx;
+ s.num = vq->last_used_idx;
+ if (vhost_has_feature(vq, VIRTIO_F_RING_PACKED))
+ s.num |= vq->last_used_wrap_counter << 31;
if (copy_to_user(argp, &s, sizeof s))
r = -EFAULT;
break;
[...]
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
