Re: [PATCH 18/31] vhost: Shadow virtqueue buffers forwarding

[Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx>]

在 2022/2/21 下午4:15, Eugenio Perez Martin 写道:
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 8:44 AM Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 在 2022/2/17 下午8:48, Eugenio Perez Martin 写道:
> > > On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 9:16 AM Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > 在 2022/2/1 下午7:25, Eugenio Perez Martin 写道:
> > > > > On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 7:47 AM Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > 在 2022/1/22 上午4:27, Eugenio Pérez 写道:
> > > > > > > @@ -272,6 +590,28 @@ void vhost_svq_set_svq_kick_fd(VhostShadowVirtqueue *svq, int svq_kick_fd)
> > > > > > >      void vhost_svq_stop(VhostShadowVirtqueue *svq)
> > > > > > >      {
> > > > > > >          event_notifier_set_handler(&svq->svq_kick, NULL);
> > > > > > > +    g_autofree VirtQueueElement *next_avail_elem = NULL;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +    if (!svq->vq) {
> > > > > > > +        return;
> > > > > > > +    }
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +    /* Send all pending used descriptors to guest */
> > > > > > > +    vhost_svq_flush(svq, false);
> > > > > > Do we need to wait for all the pending descriptors to be completed here?
> > > > > No, this function does not wait, it only completes the forwarding of
> > > > > the *used* descriptors.
> > > > >
> > > > > The best example is the net rx queue in my opinion. This call will
> > > > > check SVQ's vring used_idx and will forward the last used descriptors
> > > > > if any, but all available descriptors will remain as available for
> > > > > qemu's VQ code.
> > > > >
> > > > > To skip it would miss those last rx descriptors in migration.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > So it's probably to not the best place to ask. It's more about the
> > > > inflight descriptors so it should be TX instead of RX.
> > > >
> > > > I can imagine the migration last phase, we should stop the vhost-vDPA
> > > > before calling vhost_svq_stop(). Then we should be fine regardless of
> > > > inflight descriptors.
> > > I think I'm still missing something here.
> > >
> > > To be on the same page. Regarding tx this could cause repeated tx
> > > frames (one at source and other at destination), but never a missed
> > > buffer not transmitted. The "stop before" could be interpreted as "SVQ
> > > is not forwarding available buffers anymore". Would that work?
> >
> > Right, but this only work if
> >
> > 1) a flush to make sure TX DMA for inflight descriptors are all completed
> >
> > 2) just mark all inflight descriptor used
> It currently trusts on the reverse: Buffers not marked as used (by the
> device) will be available in the destination, so expect
> retransmissions.


I may miss something but I think we do migrate last_avail_idx. So there 
won't be a re-transmission, since we depend on qemu virtqueue code to 
deal with vring base?

Thanks


> Thanks!
>
> > Otherwise there could be buffers that is inflight forever.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +    for (unsigned i = 0; i < svq->vring.num; ++i) {
> > > > > > > +        g_autofree VirtQueueElement *elem = NULL;
> > > > > > > +        elem = g_steal_pointer(&svq->ring_id_maps[i]);
> > > > > > > +        if (elem) {
> > > > > > > +            virtqueue_detach_element(svq->vq, elem, elem->len);
> > > > > > > +        }
> > > > > > > +    }
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +    next_avail_elem = g_steal_pointer(&svq->next_guest_avail_elem);
> > > > > > > +    if (next_avail_elem) {
> > > > > > > +        virtqueue_detach_element(svq->vq, next_avail_elem,
> > > > > > > +                                 next_avail_elem->len);
> > > > > > > +    }
> > > > > > >      }

_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization