On Sun, Jan 30 2022, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 05:12:46PM +0200, Max Gurtovoy wrote: >> >> On 1/30/2022 4:41 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> > On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 11:56:30AM +0200, Max Gurtovoy wrote: >> > > On 1/30/2022 11:40 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> > > > On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 11:13:38AM +0200, Max Gurtovoy wrote: >> > > > > On 1/29/2022 5:53 AM, Jason Wang wrote: >> > > > > > On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 11:52 PM Michael S. Tsirkin >> > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 04:49:34PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: >> > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 28 2022, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <[email protected]> >> > > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 01:14:14PM +0100, Cornelia Huck >> > > > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 24 2022, Max Gurtovoy <[email protected]> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > +\section{Admin Virtqueues}\label{sec:Basic Facilities >> > > > > > > > > > > of a Virtio Device / Admin Virtqueues} >> > > > > > > > > > > + >> > > > > > > > > > > +Admin virtqueue is used to send administrative commands >> > > > > > > > > > > to manipulate >> > > > > > > > > > > +various features of the device and/or to manipulate >> > > > > > > > > > > various features, >> > > > > > > > > > > +if possible, of another device within the same group >> > > > > > > > > > > (e.g. PCI VFs of >> > > > > > > > > > > +a parent PCI PF device are grouped together. These >> > > > > > > > > > > devices can be >> > > > > > > > > > > +optionally managed by its parent PCI PF using its admin >> > > > > > > > > > > virtqueue.). >> > > > > > > > > > > + >> > > > > > > > > > > +Use of Admin virtqueue is negotiated by the >> > > > > > > > > > > VIRTIO_F_ADMIN_VQ >> > > > > > > > > > > +feature bit. >> > > > > > > > > > > + >> > > > > > > > > > > +Admin virtqueue index may vary among different device >> > > > > > > > > > > types. >> > > > > > > > > > So, my understanding is: >> > > > > > > > > > - any device type may or may not support the admin vq >> > > > > > > > > > - if the device type wants to be able to accommodate the >> > > > > > > > > > admin vq, it >> > > > > > > > > > also needs to specify where it shows up when the >> > > > > > > > > > feature is negotiated >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Do we expect that eventually all device types will need to >> > > > > > > > > > support the >> > > > > > > > > > admin vq (if some use case comes along that will require >> > > > > > > > > > all devices to >> > > > > > > > > > participate, for example?) >> > > > > > > > > I suspect yes. And that's one of the reasons why I'd rather >> > > > > > > > > we had a >> > > > > > > > > device independent way to locate the admin queue. There are >> > > > > > > > > less >> > > > > > > > > transports than device types. >> > > > > > > > So, do we want to bite the bullet now and simply say that >> > > > > > > > every device >> > > > > > > > type has the admin vq as the last vq if the feature is >> > > > > > > > negotiated? >> > > > > > > > Should be straightforward for the device types that have a >> > > > > > > > fixed number >> > > > > > > > of vqs, and doable for those that have a variable amount (two >> > > > > > > > device >> > > > > > > > types are covered by this series anyway.) I think we need to >> > > > > > > > put it with >> > > > > > > > the device types, as otherwise the numbering of virtqueues >> > > > > > > > could change >> > > > > > > > in unpredictable ways with the admin vq off/on. >> > > > > > > Well that only works once. The next thing we'll need we won't be >> > > > > > > able to >> > > > > > > make the last one ;) So I am inclined to add a per-transport >> > > > > > > field that >> > > > > > > gives the admin queue number. >> > > > > > Technically, there's no need to use the same namespace for admin >> > > > > > virtqueue if it has a dedicated notification area. If we go this >> > > > > > way, >> > > > > > we can simply use 0 as queue index for admin virtqueue. >> > > > > Or we can use index 0xFFFF for admin virtqueue for compatibility. >> > > > I think I'd prefer a register with the #. For example we might want >> > > > to limit the # of VQs in order to pass extra data with the kick write. >> > > So you are suggesting adding a new cfg_type (#define >> > > VIRTIO_PCI_CAP_ADMIN_CFG 10) ? >> > > >> > > that will look something like: >> > > >> > > struct virtio_pci_admin_cfg { >> > > >> > > le32 queue_index; /* read only for the driver */ >> > > >> > > le16 queue_size; /* read-write */ >> > > le16 queue_msix_vector; /* read-write */ >> > > le16 queue_enable; /* read-write */ >> > > le16 queue_notify_off; /* read-only for driver */ >> > > le64 queue_desc; /* read-write */ >> > > le64 queue_driver; /* read-write */ >> > > le64 queue_device; /* read-write */ >> > > le16 queue_notify_data; /* read-only for driver */ >> > > le16 queue_reset; /* read-write */ >> > > >> > > }; >> > > >> > > instead of re-using the struct virtio_pci_common_cfg ? >> > > >> > > >> > > or do you prefer extending the struct virtio_pci_common_cfg with "le16 >> > > admin_queue_index; /* read only for the driver */ ? >> > The later. Other transports will need this too. >> > >> > >> > Cornelia has another idea which is that instead of >> > adding just the admin queue register to all transports, >> > we instead add a misc_config structure to all >> > transports. Working basically like device specific config, >> > but being device independent. For now it will only have >> > a single le16 admin_queue_index register. >> > >> > For PCI we would thus add it with VIRTIO_PCI_CAP_MISC_CFG >> > >> > The point here is that we are making it easier to add >> > more fields just like admin queue index in the future. >> >> OK. >> >> #define VIRTIO_PCI_CAP_MISC_CFG 10 >> >> and >> >> struct virtio_pci_misc_cfg { >> le16 admin_queue_index; /* read-only for driver */ >> }; >> >> Is agreed by all for V3 ? instead of the net and blk AQ index definitions. > > We need to add it to MMIO and CCW I guess too. That seems ok for pci. For ccw, I'd do something like #define CCW_CMD_READ_MISC_CONF 0x82 struct virtio_misc_conf { be16 admin_queue_index; }; bound to revision 3, which gets a payload data containing the length of this structure (for future expansions). Halil, do you think that would work? For mmio, I'd need to think a bit more. Any mmio experts around? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
