On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 3:47 PM Eugenio Perez Martin
<eperezma@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 3:03 AM Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 9:32 PM Eugenio Perez Martin
> > <eperezma@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 5:06 AM Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 11:46 AM Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 2:09 AM Dragos Tatulea <dtatulea@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The virtio spec doesn't allow changing virtqueue addresses after
> > > > > > DRIVER_OK. Some devices do support this operation when the device is
> > > > > > suspended. The VHOST_BACKEND_F_CHANGEABLE_VQ_ADDR_IN_SUSPEND flag
> > > > > > advertises this support as a backend features.
> > > > >
> > > > > There's an ongoing effort in virtio spec to introduce the suspend state.
> > > > >
> > > > > So I wonder if it's better to just allow such behaviour?
> > > >
> > > > Actually I mean, allow drivers to modify the parameters during suspend
> > > > without a new feature.
> > > >
> > >
> > > That would be ideal, but how do userland checks if it can suspend +
> > > change properties + resume?
> >
> > As discussed, it looks to me the only device that supports suspend is
> > simulator and it supports change properties.
> >
> > E.g:
> >
> > static int vdpasim_set_vq_address(struct vdpa_device *vdpa, u16 idx,
> > u64 desc_area, u64 driver_area,
> > u64 device_area)
> > {
> > struct vdpasim *vdpasim = vdpa_to_sim(vdpa);
> > struct vdpasim_virtqueue *vq = &vdpasim->vqs[idx];
> >
> > vq->desc_addr = desc_area;
> > vq->driver_addr = driver_area;
> > vq->device_addr = device_area;
> >
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
>
> So in the current kernel master it is valid to set a different vq
> address while the device is suspended in vdpa_sim. But it is not valid
> in mlx5, as the FW will not be updated in resume (Dragos, please
> correct me if I'm wrong). Both of them return success.
>
> How can we know in the destination QEMU if it is valid to suspend &
> set address? Should we handle this as a bugfix and backport the
> change?
Good point.
We probably need to do backport, this seems to be the easiest way.
Theoretically, userspace may assume this behavior (though I don't
think there would be a user that depends on the simulator).
>
> > >
> > > The only way that comes to my mind is to make sure all parents return
> > > error if userland tries to do it, and then fallback in userland.
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > I'm
> > > ok with that, but I'm not sure if the current master & previous kernel
> > > has a coherent behavior. Do they return error? Or return success
> > > without changing address / vq state?
> >
> > We probably don't need to worry too much here, as e.g set_vq_address
> > could fail even without suspend (just at uAPI level).
> >
>
> I don't get this, sorry. I rephrased my point with an example earlier
> in the mail.
I mean currently, VHOST_SET_VRING_ADDR can fail. So userspace should
not assume it will always succeed.
Thanks
>
