On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 06:29:21PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > On 2019/10/23 下午6:11, Tiwei Bie wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 03:25:00PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > On 2019/10/23 下午3:07, Tiwei Bie wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 01:46:23PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > > On 2019/10/23 上午11:02, Tiwei Bie wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 09:30:16PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > > > > On 2019/10/22 下午5:52, Tiwei Bie wrote: > > > > > > > > This patch introduces a mdev based hardware vhost backend. > > > > > > > > This backend is built on top of the same abstraction used > > > > > > > > in virtio-mdev and provides a generic vhost interface for > > > > > > > > userspace to accelerate the virtio devices in guest. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This backend is implemented as a mdev device driver on top > > > > > > > > of the same mdev device ops used in virtio-mdev but using > > > > > > > > a different mdev class id, and it will register the device > > > > > > > > as a VFIO device for userspace to use. Userspace can setup > > > > > > > > the IOMMU with the existing VFIO container/group APIs and > > > > > > > > then get the device fd with the device name. After getting > > > > > > > > the device fd of this device, userspace can use vhost ioctls > > > > > > > > to setup the backend. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Tiwei Bie <tiwei.bie@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > This patch depends on below series: > > > > > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/10/17/286 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > v1 -> v2: > > > > > > > > - Replace _SET_STATE with _SET_STATUS (MST); > > > > > > > > - Check status bits at each step (MST); > > > > > > > > - Report the max ring size and max number of queues (MST); > > > > > > > > - Add missing MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE (Jason); > > > > > > > > - Only support the network backend w/o multiqueue for now; > > > > > > > Any idea on how to extend it to support devices other than net? I think we > > > > > > > want a generic API or an API that could be made generic in the future. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do we want to e.g having a generic vhost mdev for all kinds of devices or > > > > > > > introducing e.g vhost-net-mdev and vhost-scsi-mdev? > > > > > > One possible way is to do what vhost-user does. I.e. Apart from > > > > > > the generic ring, features, ... related ioctls, we also introduce > > > > > > device specific ioctls when we need them. As vhost-mdev just needs > > > > > > to forward configs between parent and userspace and even won't > > > > > > cache any info when possible, > > > > > So it looks to me this is only possible if we expose e.g set_config and > > > > > get_config to userspace. > > > > The set_config and get_config interface isn't really everything > > > > of device specific settings. We also have ctrlq in virtio-net. > > > > > > Yes, but it could be processed by the exist API. Isn't it? Just set ctrl vq > > > address and let parent to deal with that. > > I mean how to expose ctrlq related settings to userspace? > > > I think it works like: > > 1) userspace find ctrl_vq is supported > > 2) then it can allocate memory for ctrl vq and set its address through > vhost-mdev > > 3) userspace can populate ctrl vq itself I see. That is to say, userspace e.g. QEMU will program the ctrl vq with the existing VHOST_*_VRING_* ioctls, and parent drivers should know that the addresses used in ctrl vq are host virtual addresses in vhost-mdev's case. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it might be better to do > > > > > > this in one generic vhost-mdev module. > > > > > Looking at definitions of VhostUserRequest in qemu, it mixed generic API > > > > > with device specific API. If we want go this ways (a generic vhost-mdev), > > > > > more questions needs to be answered: > > > > > > > > > > 1) How could userspace know which type of vhost it would use? Do we need to > > > > > expose virtio subsystem device in for userspace this case? > > > > > > > > > > 2) That generic vhost-mdev module still need to filter out unsupported > > > > > ioctls for a specific type. E.g if it probes a net device, it should refuse > > > > > API for other type. This in fact a vhost-mdev-net but just not modularize it > > > > > on top of vhost-mdev. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Some minor fixes and improvements; > > > > > > > > - Rebase on top of virtio-mdev series v4; > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > +static long vhost_mdev_get_features(struct vhost_mdev *m, u64 __user *featurep) > > > > > > > > +{ > > > > > > > > + if (copy_to_user(featurep, &m->features, sizeof(m->features))) > > > > > > > > + return -EFAULT; > > > > > > > As discussed in previous version do we need to filter out MQ feature here? > > > > > > I think it's more straightforward to let the parent drivers to > > > > > > filter out the unsupported features. Otherwise it would be tricky > > > > > > when we want to add more features in vhost-mdev module, > > > > > It's as simple as remove the feature from blacklist? > > > > It's not really that easy. It may break the old drivers. > > > > > > I'm not sure I understand here, we do feature negotiation anyhow. For old > > > drivers do you mean the guest drivers without MQ? > > For old drivers I mean old parent drivers. It's possible > > to compile old drivers on new kernels. > > > Yes, but if old parent driver itself can not support MQ it should just not > advertise that feature. > > > > > > I'm not quite sure how will we implement MQ support in > > vhost-mdev. > > > Yes, that's why I ask here. I think we want the vhost-mdev to be generic > which means it's better not let vhost-mdev to know anything which is device > specific. So this is a question that should be considered. +1 > > > > If we need to introduce new virtio_mdev_device_ops > > callbacks and an old driver exposed the MQ feature, > > then the new vhost-mdev will see this old driver expose > > MQ feature but not provide corresponding callbacks.ean > > > That's exact the issue which current API can not handle, so that's why I > suggest to filter MQ out for vhost-mdev. > > And in the future, we can: > > 1) invent new ioctls and convert them to config access or > > 2) just exposing config for userspace to access (then vhost-mdev work much > more similar to virtio-mdev). > > > > > > > > > > > > > i.e. if > > > > > > the parent drivers may expose unsupported features and relay on > > > > > > vhost-mdev to filter them out, these features will be exposed > > > > > > to userspace automatically when they are enabled in vhost-mdev > > > > > > in the future. > > > > > The issue is, it's only that vhost-mdev knows its own limitation. E.g in > > > > > this patch, vhost-mdev only implements a subset of transport API, but parent > > > > > doesn't know about that. > > > > > > > > > > Still MQ as an example, there's no way (or no need) for parent to know that > > > > > vhost-mdev does not support MQ. > > > > The mdev is a MDEV_CLASS_ID_VHOST mdev device. When the parent > > > > is being developed, it should know the currently supported features > > > > of vhost-mdev. > > > > > > How can parent know MQ is not supported by vhost-mdev? > > Good point. I agree vhost-mdev should filter out the unsupported > > features. But in the meantime, I think drivers also shouldn't > > expose unsupported features. > > > Exactly. But there's a case in the middle, e.g parent drivers support MQ and > virtio-mdev can do that but not vhost-mdev. As we have different mdev class IDs between virtio-mdev and vhost-mdev, maybe parent can leverage it to return different sets of supported features for virtio-mdev and vhost-mdev respectively. > > > > > > > > > > > > And this allows old kenrel to work with new > > > > > parent drivers. > > > > The new drivers should provide things like VIRTIO_MDEV_F_VERSION_1 > > > > to be compatible with the old kernels. When VIRTIO_MDEV_F_VERSION_1 > > > > is provided/negotiated, the behaviours should be consistent. > > > > > > To be clear, I didn't mean a change in virtio-mdev API, I meant: > > > > > > 1) old vhost-mdev kernel driver that filters out MQ > > > > > > 2) new parent driver that support MQ > > > > > > > > > > > So basically we have three choices here: > > > > > > > > > > 1) Implement what vhost-user did and implement a generic vhost-mdev (but may > > > > > still have lots of device specific code). To support advanced feature which > > > > > requires the access to config, still lots of API that needs to be added. > > > > > > > > > > 2) Implement what vhost-kernel did, have a generic vhost-mdev driver and a > > > > > vhost bus on top for match a device specific API e.g vhost-mdev-net. We > > > > > still have device specific API but limit them only to device specific > > > > > module. Still require new ioctls for advanced feature like MQ. > > > > > > > > > > 3) Simply expose all virtio-mdev transport to userspace. > > > > Currently, virtio-mdev transport is a set of function callbacks > > > > defined in kernel. How to simply expose virtio-mdev transport to > > > > userspace? > > > > > > The most straightforward way is to have an 1:1 mapping between ioctl and > > > virito_mdev_device_ops. > > Seems we are already trying to do 1:1 mapping between ioctl > > and virtio_mdev_device_ops in vhost-mdev now (the major piece > > missing is get_device_id/get_config/set_config). > > > Yes, with this we can have a device independent API. Do you think this is > better? Yeah, I agree. Thanks, Tiwei > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A generic module > > > > > without any type specific code (like virtio-mdev). No need dedicated API for > > > > > e.g MQ. But then the API will look much different than current vhost did. > > > > > > > > > > Consider the limitation of 1) I tend to choose 2 or 3. What's you opinion? > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
