在 2023/3/2 03:32, Eugenio Perez Martin 写道:
On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 9:20 AM Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 4:15 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
在 2023/2/24 23:54, Eugenio Pérez 写道:
A vdpa net device must initialize with SVQ in order to be migratable at
this moment, and initialization code verifies some conditions. If the
device is not initialized with the x-svq parameter, it will not expose
_F_LOG so the vhost subsystem will block VM migration from its
initialization.
Next patches change this, so we need to verify migration conditions
differently.
QEMU only supports a subset of net features in SVQ, and it cannot
migrate state that cannot track or restore in the destination. Add a
migration blocker if the device offer an unsupported feature.
Signed-off-by: Eugenio Pérez <eperezma@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
v3: add mirgation blocker properly so vhost_dev can handle it.
---
net/vhost-vdpa.c | 12 ++++++++----
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/vhost-vdpa.c b/net/vhost-vdpa.c
index 4f983df000..094dc1c2d0 100644
--- a/net/vhost-vdpa.c
+++ b/net/vhost-vdpa.c
@@ -795,7 +795,8 @@ static NetClientState *net_vhost_vdpa_init(NetClientState *peer,
int nvqs,
bool is_datapath,
bool svq,
- struct vhost_vdpa_iova_range iova_range)
+ struct vhost_vdpa_iova_range iova_range,
+ uint64_t features)
{
NetClientState *nc = NULL;
VhostVDPAState *s;
@@ -818,7 +819,10 @@ static NetClientState *net_vhost_vdpa_init(NetClientState *peer,
s->vhost_vdpa.shadow_vqs_enabled = svq;
s->vhost_vdpa.iova_range = iova_range;
s->vhost_vdpa.shadow_data = svq;
- if (!is_datapath) {
+ if (queue_pair_index == 0) {
+ vhost_vdpa_net_valid_svq_features(features,
+ &s->vhost_vdpa.migration_blocker);
Since we do validation at initialization, is this necessary to valid
once again in other places?
Ok, after reading patch 13, I think the question is:
The validation seems to be independent to net, can we valid it once
during vhost_vdpa_init()?
vhost_vdpa_net_valid_svq_features also checks for net features. In
particular, all the non transport features must be in
vdpa_svq_device_features.
This is how we protect that the device / guest will never negotiate
things like VLAN filtering support, as SVQ still does not know how to
restore at the destination.
In the VLAN filtering case CVQ is needed to restore VLAN, so it is
covered by patch 11/15. But other future features may need support for
restoring it in the destination.
I wonder how hard to have a general validation code let net specific
code to advertise a blacklist to avoid code duplication.
Thanks
Thanks!
Thanks
Thanks
+ } else if (!is_datapath) {
s->cvq_cmd_out_buffer = qemu_memalign(qemu_real_host_page_size(),
vhost_vdpa_net_cvq_cmd_page_len());
memset(s->cvq_cmd_out_buffer, 0, vhost_vdpa_net_cvq_cmd_page_len());
@@ -956,7 +960,7 @@ int net_init_vhost_vdpa(const Netdev *netdev, const char *name,
for (i = 0; i < queue_pairs; i++) {
ncs[i] = net_vhost_vdpa_init(peer, TYPE_VHOST_VDPA, name,
vdpa_device_fd, i, 2, true, opts->x_svq,
- iova_range);
+ iova_range, features);
if (!ncs[i])
goto err;
}
@@ -964,7 +968,7 @@ int net_init_vhost_vdpa(const Netdev *netdev, const char *name,
if (has_cvq) {
nc = net_vhost_vdpa_init(peer, TYPE_VHOST_VDPA, name,
vdpa_device_fd, i, 1, false,
- opts->x_svq, iova_range);
+ opts->x_svq, iova_range, features);
if (!nc)
goto err;
}
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
