Re: [PATCH V2] vdpa: allow provisioning device features

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

 





On 12/5/2022 7:14 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 9:43 AM Si-Wei Liu <si-wei.liu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


On 12/4/2022 10:46 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
On Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 8:53 AM Si-Wei Liu <si-wei.liu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sorry for getting back late due to the snag of the holidays.
No worries :)

On 11/23/2022 11:13 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 6:53 AM Si-Wei Liu <si-wei.liu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 11/22/2022 7:35 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 6:29 AM Si-Wei Liu <si-wei.liu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 11/16/2022 7:33 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
This patch allows device features to be provisioned via vdpa. This
will be useful for preserving migration compatibility between source
and destination:

# vdpa dev add name dev1 mgmtdev pci/0000:02:00.0 device_features 0x300020000
Miss the actual "vdpa dev config show" command below
Right, let me fix that.

# dev1: mac 52:54:00:12:34:56 link up link_announce false mtu 65535
           negotiated_features CTRL_VQ VERSION_1 ACCESS_PLATFORM

Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
Changes since v1:
- Use uint64_t instead of __u64 for device_features
- Fix typos and tweak the manpage
- Add device_features to the help text
---
      man/man8/vdpa-dev.8            | 15 +++++++++++++++
      vdpa/include/uapi/linux/vdpa.h |  1 +
      vdpa/vdpa.c                    | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
      3 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/man/man8/vdpa-dev.8 b/man/man8/vdpa-dev.8
index 9faf3838..43e5bf48 100644
--- a/man/man8/vdpa-dev.8
+++ b/man/man8/vdpa-dev.8
@@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ vdpa-dev \- vdpa device configuration
      .I NAME
      .B mgmtdev
      .I MGMTDEV
+.RI "[ device_features " DEVICE_FEATURES " ]"
      .RI "[ mac " MACADDR " ]"
      .RI "[ mtu " MTU " ]"
      .RI "[ max_vqp " MAX_VQ_PAIRS " ]"
@@ -74,6 +75,15 @@ Name of the new vdpa device to add.
      Name of the management device to use for device addition.

      .PP
+.BI device_features " DEVICE_FEATURES"
+Specifies the virtio device features bit-mask that is provisioned for the new vdpa device.
+
+The bits can be found under include/uapi/linux/virtio*h.
+
+see macros such as VIRTIO_F_ and VIRTIO_XXX(e.g NET)_F_ for specific bit values.
+
+This is optional.
Document the behavior when this attribute is missing? For e.g. inherit
device features from parent device.
This is the current behaviour but unless we've found a way to mandate
it, I'd like to not mention it. Maybe add a description to say the
user needs to check the features after the add if features are not
specified.
Well, I think at least for live migration the mgmt software should get
to some consistent result between all vdpa parent drivers regarding
feature inheritance.
It would be hard. Especially for the device:

1) ask device_features from the device, in this case, new features
could be advertised after e.g a firmware update
The consistency I meant is to always inherit all device features from
the parent device for whatever it is capable of,
This looks fragile. How about the features that are mutually
exclusive? E.g FEATURE_X and FEATURE_Y that are both supported by the
mgmt?
Hmmm, in theory, yes, it's a bit cumbersome. Is this for future proof,
since so far as I see the virtio spec doesn't seem to define features
that are mutually exclusive, and the way how driver should respond to
mutually exclusive features in feature negotiation is completely undefined?
My understanding is that if a driver accepts two mutually exclusive
features it should be a bug.
It depends on the nature of the specific feature I guess. For e.g. there could be two versions of implementation for some device feature, which are mutually exclusive. The driver can well selectively ack one of the version it supports if seeing both present.


But anyhow it's an example that it is not easy to have forward
compatibility if we mandating to inherit all features from the
management device.

Yep, that I agree.

since that was the only
reasonable behavior pre-dated the device_features attribute, even though
there's no mandatory check by the vdpa core. This way it's
self-descriptive and consistent for the mgmt software to infer, as users
can check into dev_features at the parent mgmtdev level to know what
features will be ended up with after 'vdpa dev add'. I thought even
though inheritance is not mandated as part of uAPI, it should at least
be mentioned as a recommended guide line (for drivers in particular),
especially this is the only reasonable behavior with nowhere to check
what features are ended up after add (i.e. for now we can only set but
not possible to read the exact device_features at vdpa dev level, as yet).
I fully agree, but what I want to say is. Consider:

1) We've already had feature provisioning
2) It would be hard or even impossible to mandate the semantic
(consistency) of the features inheritance.

I'm fine with the doc, but the mgmt layer should not depend on this
and they should use feature provisioning instead.
OK, if it's for future proof to not mandate feature inheritance I think
I see the point.

2) or have hierarchy architecture where several layers were placed
between vDPA and the real hardware
Not sure what it means but I don't get why extra layers are needed. Do
you mean extra layer to validate resulting features during add? Why vdpa
core is not the right place to do that?
Just want to go wild because we can't expect how many layers are below vDPA.

vDPA core is the right place but the validating should be done during
feature provisioning since it's much more easier than trying to
mandating code defined behaviour like inheritance.
OK, thanks for the clarifications.

This inheritance predates the exposure of device
features, until which user can check into specific features after
creation. Imagine the case mgmt software of live migration needs to work
with older vdpa tool stack with no device_features exposure, how does it
know what device features are provisioned - it can only tell it from
dev_features shown at the parent mgmtdev level.
The behavior is totally defined by the code, it would be not safe for
the mgmt layer to depend on. Instead, the mgmt layer should use a
recent vdpa tool with feature provisioning interface to guarantee the
device_features if it wants since it has a clear semantic instead of
an implicit kernel behaviour which doesn't belong to an uAPI.
That is going to be a slightly harsh requirement. If there's an existing
vDPA setup already provisioned before the device_features work, there is
no way for it to live migrate even if the QEMU userspace stack is made
live migrate-able. It'd be the best to find some mild alternative before
claiming certain setup unmigrate-able.
It can still work in a passive way, mgmt layer check the device
features and only allow the migration among the vDPA devices that have
the same device_feature.
Right, that is the scenario in concern which I'd like to get support
for, even though it's passive due to incompleteness in previous CLI
design (lack of individual device feature provisioning). Once the tool
is upgraded, vdpa features can be provisioned selectively on the
destination node, matching those on the source.
This should work, but it probably requires the mgmt layer to collect
and compare features among the nodes.
Yes. I know libvirt probably won't support this. But it would benefit other mgmt software implementation, where each node would have to record the initial config attributes in the first place. :)


   Less flexible than feature provisioning.

If we can mandate the inheriting behaviour, users may be surprised at
the features in the production environment which are very hard to
debug.
I'm not against an explicit uAPI to define and guard device_features
inheritance, but on the other hand, wouldn't it be necessary to show the
actual device_features at vdpa dev level if it's not guaranteed to be
the same with that of the parent mgmtdev?
I think this is already been done ,or anything I miss?
The kernel patch is not merged yet, preventing the userspace patch from
being posted.
I may miss something, any potiner here?
First the following rename patch has to get in to the kernel:
https://lore.kernel.org/virtualization/1665422823-18364-1-git-send-email-si-wei.liu@xxxxxxxxxx/

then I can post the related iproute patch to include dev_features to the output of 'vdpa dev show'.

This initial config series run independently, though the eventual goal is to get all of migration compatibility attributes packed in the same "initial_config" map.

https://lore.kernel.org/virtualization/1666392237-4042-1-git-send-email-si-wei.liu@xxxxxxxxxx/

While the ideal situation is to allow query of
device_features after adding a vdpa dev (for e.g. if not 100% inherited
from the parent mgmtdev), followed by allowing selectively provision
features individually.
Yes.

That is even needed before
users are allowed to provision specific device_features IMO...

(that is the reason why I urged Michael to merge this patch soon before
6.1 GA:
https://lore.kernel.org/virtualization/1665422823-18364-1-git-send-email-si-wei.liu@xxxxxxxxxx/,
for which I have a pending iproute patch to expose device_features at
'vdpa dev show' output).
Right.

IMHO it's not about whether vdpa core can or should mandate it in a
common place or not, it's that (the man page of) the CLI tool should set
user's expectation upfront for consumers (for e.g. mgmt software). I.e.
in case the parent driver doesn't follow the man page doc, it should be
considered as an implementation bug in the individual driver rather than
flexibility of its own.
So for the inheriting, it might be too late to do that:

1) no facility to mandate the inheriting and even if we had we can't
fix old kernels
We don't need to fix any old kernel as all drivers there had obeyed the
inheriting rule since day 1. Or is there exception you did see? If so we
should treat it as a bug to fix in driver.
I'm not sure it's a bug consider a vDPA device have only a subset
feature of what mgmt has.
For example, F_MQ requires F_CTRL_VQ, but today this validation is only
done in individual driver. We should consider consolidating it to the
vdpa core.
This needs some balances, the core actually tries to be devince
agnostic (though it has some net specific code).
Yes, this is already the case today. There has been various VIRTIO_ID_NET case switch'es in the vdpa.c code. I think if type specific validation code just limits itself to the netlink API interfacing layer rather than down to the driver API, it might just be okay (as that's already the case).

One side effect is that it would be very hard for the core to catch up
with the spec development. With the current code, new features could
be added without the notice of the core.
I thought at least the vdpa core can capture those validations already defined in the spec. For new development out of spec, driver can be a safe place to start.


Regards,
-Siwei


But before that happens, if such validation is missing from
driver, we should fix those in vendor drivers first.
Yes, that's the way. (E.g virtio-net driver has such validation)

2) no uAPI so there no entity to carry on the semantic
Not against of introducing an explicit uAPI, but what it may end up with
is only some validation in a central place, right?
Well, this is what has been already done right now before the feature
provisioning, the kernel for anyway needs to validate the illegal
input from userspace.
Right. What I meant is the kernel validation in vdpa_core should be done
anyway regardless of any new uAPI (for feature inheritance for e.g). I
guess we are in the same page here.
Great, I think so.

Thanks

Thanks,
-Siwei

Why not do it now
before adding device features provisioning to userspace. Such that it's
functionality complete and correct no matter if device_features is
specified or not.
So as discussed before, the kernel has already tried to do validation,
if there's any bug, we can fix that. If you meant userspace
validation, I'm not sure it is necessary:

1) kernel should do the validation
2) hard to keep forward compatibility, e.g features supported by the
mgmt device might not be even known by the userspace.

Thanks

Thanks,
-Siwei

And this is one of the goals that feature provisioning tries to solve
so mgmt layer should use feature provisioning instead.

And what is the expected behavior when feature bit mask is off but the
corresponding config attr (for e.g. mac, mtu, and max_vqp) is set?
It depends totally on the parent. And this "issue" is not introduced
by this feature. Parents can decide to provision MQ by itself even if
max_vqp is not specified.
Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough. The case I referred to was that the
parent is capable of certain feature (for e.g. _F_MQ), the associated
config attr (for e.g. max_vqp) is already present in the CLI, but the
device_features bit mask doesn't have the corresponding bit set (e.g.
the _F_MQ bit). Are you saying that the failure of this apparently
invalid/ambiguous/conflicting command can't be predicated and the
resulting behavior is totally ruled by the parent driver?
Ok, I get you. My understanding is that the kernel should do the
validation at least, it should not trust any configuration that is
sent from the userspace. This is how it works before the device
provisioning. I think we can add some validation in the kernel.

Thanks

Thanks,
-Siwei

I think the previous behavior without device_features is that any config
attr implies the presence of the specific corresponding feature (_F_MAC,
_F_MTU, and _F_MQ). Should device_features override the other config
attribute, or such combination is considered invalid thus should fail?
It follows the current policy, e.g if the parent doesn't support
_F_MQ, we can neither provision _F_MQ nor max_vqp.

Thanks

Thanks,
-Siwei

+
      .BI mac " MACADDR"
      - specifies the mac address for the new vdpa device.
      This is applicable only for the network type of vdpa device. This is optional.
@@ -127,6 +137,11 @@ vdpa dev add name foo mgmtdev vdpa_sim_net
      Add the vdpa device named foo on the management device vdpa_sim_net.
      .RE
      .PP
+vdpa dev add name foo mgmtdev vdpa_sim_net device_features 0x300020000
+.RS 4
+Add the vdpa device named foo on the management device vdpa_sim_net with device_features of 0x300020000
+.RE
+.PP
      vdpa dev add name foo mgmtdev vdpa_sim_net mac 00:11:22:33:44:55
      .RS 4
      Add the vdpa device named foo on the management device vdpa_sim_net with mac address of 00:11:22:33:44:55.
diff --git a/vdpa/include/uapi/linux/vdpa.h b/vdpa/include/uapi/linux/vdpa.h
index 94e4dad1..7c961991 100644
--- a/vdpa/include/uapi/linux/vdpa.h
+++ b/vdpa/include/uapi/linux/vdpa.h
@@ -51,6 +51,7 @@ enum vdpa_attr {
          VDPA_ATTR_DEV_QUEUE_INDEX,              /* u32 */
          VDPA_ATTR_DEV_VENDOR_ATTR_NAME,         /* string */
          VDPA_ATTR_DEV_VENDOR_ATTR_VALUE,        /* u64 */
+     VDPA_ATTR_DEV_FEATURES,                 /* u64 */

          /* new attributes must be added above here */
          VDPA_ATTR_MAX,
diff --git a/vdpa/vdpa.c b/vdpa/vdpa.c
index b73e40b4..d0ce5e22 100644
--- a/vdpa/vdpa.c
+++ b/vdpa/vdpa.c
@@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
      #define VDPA_OPT_VDEV_MTU           BIT(5)
      #define VDPA_OPT_MAX_VQP            BIT(6)
      #define VDPA_OPT_QUEUE_INDEX                BIT(7)
+#define VDPA_OPT_VDEV_FEATURES               BIT(8)

      struct vdpa_opts {
          uint64_t present; /* flags of present items */
@@ -38,6 +39,7 @@ struct vdpa_opts {
          uint16_t mtu;
          uint16_t max_vqp;
          uint32_t queue_idx;
+     uint64_t device_features;
      };

      struct vdpa {
@@ -187,6 +189,17 @@ static int vdpa_argv_u32(struct vdpa *vdpa, int argc, char **argv,
          return get_u32(result, *argv, 10);
      }

+static int vdpa_argv_u64_hex(struct vdpa *vdpa, int argc, char **argv,
+                          uint64_t *result)
+{
+     if (argc <= 0 || !*argv) {
+             fprintf(stderr, "number expected\n");
+             return -EINVAL;
+     }
+
+     return get_u64(result, *argv, 16);
+}
+
      struct vdpa_args_metadata {
          uint64_t o_flag;
          const char *err_msg;
@@ -244,6 +257,10 @@ static void vdpa_opts_put(struct nlmsghdr *nlh, struct vdpa *vdpa)
                  mnl_attr_put_u16(nlh, VDPA_ATTR_DEV_NET_CFG_MAX_VQP, opts->max_vqp);
          if (opts->present & VDPA_OPT_QUEUE_INDEX)
                  mnl_attr_put_u32(nlh, VDPA_ATTR_DEV_QUEUE_INDEX, opts->queue_idx);
+     if (opts->present & VDPA_OPT_VDEV_FEATURES) {
+             mnl_attr_put_u64(nlh, VDPA_ATTR_DEV_FEATURES,
+                             opts->device_features);
+     }
      }

      static int vdpa_argv_parse(struct vdpa *vdpa, int argc, char **argv,
@@ -329,6 +346,14 @@ static int vdpa_argv_parse(struct vdpa *vdpa, int argc, char **argv,

                          NEXT_ARG_FWD();
                          o_found |= VDPA_OPT_QUEUE_INDEX;
+             } else if (!strcmp(*argv, "device_features") &&
+                        (o_optional & VDPA_OPT_VDEV_FEATURES)) {
+                     NEXT_ARG_FWD();
+                     err = vdpa_argv_u64_hex(vdpa, argc, argv,
+                                             &opts->device_features);
+                     if (err)
+                             return err;
+                     o_found |= VDPA_OPT_VDEV_FEATURES;
                  } else {
                          fprintf(stderr, "Unknown option \"%s\"\n", *argv);
                          return -EINVAL;
@@ -615,8 +640,9 @@ static int cmd_mgmtdev(struct vdpa *vdpa, int argc, char **argv)
      static void cmd_dev_help(void)
      {
          fprintf(stderr, "Usage: vdpa dev show [ DEV ]\n");
-     fprintf(stderr, "       vdpa dev add name NAME mgmtdev MANAGEMENTDEV [ mac MACADDR ] [ mtu MTU ]\n");
-     fprintf(stderr, "                                                    [ max_vqp MAX_VQ_PAIRS ]\n");
+     fprintf(stderr, "       vdpa dev add name NAME mgmtdevMANAGEMENTDEV [ device_features DEVICE_FEATURES]\n");
+     fprintf(stderr, "                                                   [ mac MACADDR ] [ mtu MTU ]\n");
+     fprintf(stderr, "                                                   [ max_vqp MAX_VQ_PAIRS ]\n");
          fprintf(stderr, "       vdpa dev del DEV\n");
          fprintf(stderr, "Usage: vdpa dev config COMMAND [ OPTIONS ]\n");
          fprintf(stderr, "Usage: vdpa dev vstats COMMAND\n");
@@ -708,7 +734,7 @@ static int cmd_dev_add(struct vdpa *vdpa, int argc, char **argv)
          err = vdpa_argv_parse_put(nlh, vdpa, argc, argv,
                                    VDPA_OPT_VDEV_MGMTDEV_HANDLE | VDPA_OPT_VDEV_NAME,
                                    VDPA_OPT_VDEV_MAC | VDPA_OPT_VDEV_MTU |
-                               VDPA_OPT_MAX_VQP);
+                               VDPA_OPT_MAX_VQP | VDPA_OPT_VDEV_FEATURES);
          if (err)
                  return err;


_______________________________________________
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