Re: [PATCH v1 0/6] virtio: support advance DMA

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 13:59:06 +0800, Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 11:53:33 +0800, Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 11:46 AM Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 11:32:52 +0800, Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 5:00 PM Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 15:19:44 +0800, Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 4:51 PM Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > virtqueue_add() only supports virtual addresses, dma is completed in
> > > > > > > virtqueue_add().
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In some scenarios (such as the AF_XDP scenario), DMA is completed in advance, so
> > > > > > > it is necessary for us to support passing the DMA address to virtqueue_add().
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'd suggest rename this feature as "unmanaged DMA".
> > > > >
> > > > > OK
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Record this predma information in extra->flags, which can be skipped when
> > > > > > > executing dma unmap.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Question still, can we use per-virtqueue flag instead of per
> > > > > > descriptor flag? If my memory is correct, the answer is yes in the
> > > > > > discussion for the previous version.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes.
> > > > >
> > > > > per-virtqueue? I guess it should be per-submit.
> > > > >
> > > > > This patch set only adds a flag to desc_extra[head].flags, so that we can know
> > > > > if we need to unmap dma when we detach.
> > > >
> > > > I meant if we can manage to make it per virtqueue, there's no need to
> > > > maintain per buffer flag.
> > > >
> > > > So we know something that needs to be mapped by virtio core itself,
> > > > e.g the indirect page. Other than this, all the rest could be
> > > > pre-mapped.
> > > >
> > > > For vnet header, it could be mapped by virtio-net which could be still
> > > > treated as pre mapped DMA since it's not the virtio ring code.
> > > >
> > > > Anything I miss here?
> > >
> > > I guess, your understanding is that after the queue is reset, the queue is used
> > > by xsk(AF_XDP), then all commits to this vq are premapped amd address.
> > >
> > > This is ok for rx.
> > >
> > > But for tx, just like XDP TX, although vq is used by xsk, the kernel also passes
> > > skb to it at the same time. It is shared.
> >
> > Right.
> >
> > >
> > > We can guarantee that the sg of the sgs submitted at one time uses the premapped
> > > dma address or virtual address uniformly. It is not guaranteed that all the sgs
> > > to the vq are uniform
> >
> > Sorry, I don't understand here. We can let virtio-net do the mapping
> > even for TX, then from the virtio_ring point of view, it's still
> > pre-mapped?
> >
>
> Yes, we can do this. My previous thought was to keep the skb path unchanged.
>
> Then we can make it clear that in the case of xsk, after completing the queue
> reset, all the addresses submitted to virtio are the addresses of the completed
> dma, including the skb case, the dma map operation must be completed first.
>
> In this case, I feel like we can do without this patch set.

I originally thought that use_dma_api could be reused, but I found that this is
not the case. The logic of sg_phys() does not meet our ideas. We still have a
separate flag.

Thanks.

>
> Thanks.
>
> > Thanks
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > v1:
> > > > > > >    1. All sgs requested at one time are required to be unified PREDMA, and several
> > > > > > >       of them are not supported to be PREDMA
> > > > > > >    2. virtio_dma_map() is removed from this patch set and will be submitted
> > > > > > >       together with the next time AF_XDP supports virtio dma
> > > > > > >    3. Added patch #2 #3 to remove the check for flags when performing unmap
> > > > > > >       indirect desc
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Xuan Zhuo (6):
> > > > > > >   virtio: rename vring_unmap_state_packed() to
> > > > > > >     vring_unmap_extra_packed()
> > > > > > >   virtio: remove flags check for unmap split indirect desc
> > > > > > >   virtio: remove flags check for unmap packed indirect desc
> > > > > > >   virtio: virtqueue_add() support predma
> > > > > > >   virtio: split: virtqueue_add_split() support dma address
> > > > > > >   virtio: packed: virtqueue_add_packed() support dma address
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >  drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c | 199 ++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> > > > > > >  1 file changed, 126 insertions(+), 73 deletions(-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > 2.31.0
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Virtualization mailing list
> Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization



[Index of Archives]     [KVM Development]     [Libvirt Development]     [Libvirt Users]     [CentOS Virtualization]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux