On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 5:10 AM Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 7, 2025 at 7:58 PM Eugenio Pérez <epere...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > This allows sepparate the different virtqueues in groups that shares the
> > same address space. Asking the VDUSE device for the groups of the vq at
> > the beginning as they're needed for the DMA API.
> >
> > Allocating 3 vq groups as net is the device that need the most groups:
> > * Dataplane (guest passthrough)
> > * CVQ
> > * Shadowed vrings.
> >
> > Future versions of the series can include dynamic allocation of the
> > groups array so VDUSE can declare more groups.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Eugenio Pérez <epere...@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > v2:
> > * Cache group information in kernel, as we need to provide the vq map
> > tokens properly.
> > * Add descs vq group to optimize SVQ forwarding and support indirect
> > descriptors out of the box.
> > ---
> > drivers/vdpa/vdpa_user/vduse_dev.c | 71 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > include/uapi/linux/vduse.h | 19 +++++++-
> > 2 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_user/vduse_dev.c
> > b/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_user/vduse_dev.c
> > index d858c4389cc1..d1f6d00a9c71 100644
> > --- a/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_user/vduse_dev.c
> > +++ b/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_user/vduse_dev.c
> > @@ -46,6 +46,11 @@
> > #define VDUSE_IOVA_SIZE (VDUSE_MAX_BOUNCE_SIZE + 128 * 1024 * 1024)
> > #define VDUSE_MSG_DEFAULT_TIMEOUT 30
> >
> > +/*
> > + * Let's make it 3 for simplicity.
> > + */
> > +#define VDUSE_MAX_VQ_GROUPS 3
>
> I think we can release this to something like 64. Otherwise we might
> bump the version again just to increase the limitation? Or having a
> sysfs entry like bounce_size?
>
I think it should not be linked to the version, but it is true there
is no way for VDUSE devices to check the maximum VQ groups / ASID that
the kernel supports.
To handle as bounce_size seems the best option, good point. I'll send
a new version with that!
> > +
> > #define IRQ_UNBOUND -1
> >
> > struct vduse_virtqueue {
> > @@ -58,6 +63,8 @@ struct vduse_virtqueue {
> > struct vdpa_vq_state state;
> > bool ready;
> > bool kicked;
> > + u32 vq_group;
> > + u32 vq_desc_group;
> > spinlock_t kick_lock;
> > spinlock_t irq_lock;
> > struct eventfd_ctx *kickfd;
> > @@ -114,6 +121,7 @@ struct vduse_dev {
> > u8 status;
> > u32 vq_num;
> > u32 vq_align;
> > + u32 ngroups;
> > struct vduse_umem *umem;
> > struct mutex mem_lock;
> > unsigned int bounce_size;
> > @@ -592,6 +600,20 @@ static int vduse_vdpa_set_vq_state(struct vdpa_device
> > *vdpa, u16 idx,
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > +static u32 vduse_get_vq_group(struct vdpa_device *vdpa, u16 idx)
> > +{
> > + struct vduse_dev *dev = vdpa_to_vduse(vdpa);
> > +
> > + return dev->vqs[idx]->vq_group;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static u32 vduse_get_vq_desc_group(struct vdpa_device *vdpa, u16 idx)
> > +{
> > + struct vduse_dev *dev = vdpa_to_vduse(vdpa);
> > +
> > + return dev->vqs[idx]->vq_desc_group;
> > +}
> > +
> > static int vduse_vdpa_get_vq_state(struct vdpa_device *vdpa, u16 idx,
> > struct vdpa_vq_state *state)
> > {
> > @@ -678,13 +700,48 @@ static u8 vduse_vdpa_get_status(struct vdpa_device
> > *vdpa)
> > return dev->status;
> > }
> >
> > +static int vduse_fill_vq_groups(struct vduse_dev *dev)
> > +{
> > + if (dev->api_version < VDUSE_API_VERSION_1)
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + for (int i = 0; i < dev->vdev->vdpa.nvqs; ++i) {
> > + struct vduse_dev_msg msg = { 0 };
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + msg.req.type = VDUSE_GET_VQ_GROUP;
> > + msg.req.vq_group.index = i;
> > + ret = vduse_dev_msg_sync(dev, &msg);
>
> I fail to understand why the default group mapping is not done during
> device creation.
>
Because it changes depending on the features.
If a new device has 5 virtqueues and the device wants to isolate the
CVQ, the CVQ position depends on the features that the guest's acks:
* If MQ is acked the isolated vq is #5
* If MQ is not acked the isolated vq is #3.
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + dev->vqs[i]->vq_group = msg.resp.vq_group.num;
> > +
> > + msg.req.type = VDUSE_GET_VRING_DESC_GROUP;
> > + ret = vduse_dev_msg_sync(dev, &msg);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + dev->vqs[i]->vq_desc_group = msg.resp.vq_group.num;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > static void vduse_vdpa_set_status(struct vdpa_device *vdpa, u8 status)
> > {
> > struct vduse_dev *dev = vdpa_to_vduse(vdpa);
> > + u8 previous_status = dev->status;
> >
> > if (vduse_dev_set_status(dev, status))
> > return;
> >
> > + if ((dev->status ^ previous_status) &
> > + BIT_ULL(VIRTIO_CONFIG_S_FEATURES_OK) &&
> > + status & (1ULL << VIRTIO_CONFIG_S_FEATURES_OK))
> > + if (vduse_fill_vq_groups(dev))
>
> Can we merge the two messages into a single one? Or can we use a
> shared memory for storing such mapping?
>
> For example, if we have 256 queues it would be very slow.
>
To merge it in the same message is good to me, sure. To make it a
table in shm seems more complicated, unless we accept a void * in the
reply and VDUSE uses copy_from_user. If that is ok here, then sure.
