在 2021/7/7 上午1:07, Parav Pandit 写道:
From: Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, July 5, 2021 10:05 AM
在 2021/7/2 下午2:04, Parav Pandit 写道:
From: Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, July 1, 2021 1:13 PM
Actually it depends on what attributes is required for building the config.
We can simply reuse the existing virtio_net_config, if most of the
fields are required.
struct virtio_net_config_set {
__virtio64 features;
union {
struct virtio_net_config;
__virtio64 reserved[64];
}
};
If only few of the is required, we can just pick them and use another
structure.
The point is we define structure based on current fields. Tomorrow a new
RSS or rx scaling scheme appears, and structure size might need change.
And it demands us to go back to length based typecasting code.
and to avoid some length check we pick some arbitrary size reserved
words.
And I do not know what network research group will come up for new rss
algorithm and needed plumbing.
Yes, but as discussed, we may suffer the similar issue at the device level. E.g
we need a command to let PF to "build" the config for a VF or SF.
I am not sure.
Current scope of a VDPA is, once there is a has PF,VF,SF and you configure or create a vdpa device out of it.
Given the device config is not spelled out in the virtio spec, may be we can
wait for it to define virtio management interface.
Yes.
Wait is needed only if we want to cast U->K UAPI in a structure which is bound to evolve.
And hence I just want to exchange as individual fields.
It's not arbitrary but with fixed length.
Its fixed, but decided arbitrarily large in anticipation that we likely need to
grow.
And sometimes that fall short when next research comes up with more
creative thoughts.
How about something like TLVs in the virtio spec then?
Possibly yes.
It may only work for netlink (with some duplication with the existing
virtio uAPI). If we can solve it at general virtio layer, it would be
better. Otherwise we need to invent them again in the virtio spec.
Virtio spec will likely define what should be config fields to program and its
layout.
Kernel can always fill up the format that virtio spec demands.
Yes, I wonder if you have the interest to work on the spec to support this.
I am happy to contribute, I need to ask my supervisor to spend some time in this area.
Let me figure out the logistics.
Good to know that.
I think even for the current mlx5e vDPA it would be better, otherwise we
may have:
vDPA tool -> [netlink specific vDPA attributes(1)] -> vDPA core -> [vDPA
core specific VDPA attributes(2)] -> mlx5e_vDPA -> [mlx5e specific vDPA
attributes(3)] -> mlx5e_core
We need to use a single and unified virtio structure in all the (1), (2)
and (3).
This is where I differ.
Its only vdpa tool -> vdpa core -> vendor_driver
Vdpa tool -> vdpa core = netlink attribute
Vdpa core -> vendor driver = struct_foo. (internal inside the linux kernel)
If tomorrow virtio spec defines struct_foo to be something else, kernel can
always upgrade to struct_bar without upgrading UAPI netlink attributes.
That's fine. Note that actually have an extra level if vendor_driver is
virtio-pci vDPA driver (vp_vdpa).
Then we have
vdpa tool -> vdpa core -> vp_vdpa -> virtio-pci device
So we still need invent commands to configure/build VF/SF config space
between vp_vdpa and virtio-pci device.
Yes. This is needed, but again lets keep the two layers separate.
In the example I provided, we will be able to fill the structure and pass this internally between vp_vdpa->virtio pci driver.
And I think we may suffer the
similar issue as we met here (vdpa tool -> vdpa core).
Netlink attributes addition will be needed only when struct_foo has newer
fields.
This will be still forward/backward compatible.
An exact example of this is drivers/net/vxlan.c
vxlan_nl2conf().
A vxlan device needs VNI, src ip, dst ip, tos, and more.
Instead of putting all in single structure vxlan_config as UAPI, those
optional fields are netlink attributes.
And vxlan driver internally fills up the config structure.
I am very much convinced with the above vxlan approach that enables all
functionality needed without typecasting code and without defining arbitrary
length structs.
Right, but we had some small differences here:
1) vxlan doesn't have a existing uAPI
2) vxlan configuration is not used for hardware
True but vxlan example doesn’t prevent to do #2.
Basically, I'm not against this approach, I just wonder if it's
better/simpler to solve it at virtio layer because the semantic is
defined by the spec not netlink.
vdpa core will be able to use the virtio spec defined config whenever it occurs.
So I think both of us have strong points. Maybe it's the time for
Michael to decide how it will go.
Michael, please share your thoughts here.
Thanks
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
