On 2019/7/10 下午2:22, Tiwei Bie wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 10:26:10AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
On 2019/7/9 下午2:33, Tiwei Bie wrote:
On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 10:50:38AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
On 2019/7/8 下午2:16, Tiwei Bie wrote:
On Fri, Jul 05, 2019 at 08:49:46AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 14:21:34 +0800
Tiwei Bie <tiwei....@intel.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 12:31:48PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
On 2019/7/3 下午9:08, Tiwei Bie wrote:
On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 08:16:23PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
On 2019/7/3 下午7:52, Tiwei Bie wrote:
On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 06:09:51PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
On 2019/7/3 下午5:13, Tiwei Bie wrote:
Details about this can be found here:
https://lwn.net/Articles/750770/
What's new in this version
==========================
A new VFIO device type is introduced - vfio-vhost. This addressed
some comments from here:https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/984763/
Below is the updated device interface:
Currently, there are two regions of this device: 1) CONFIG_REGION
(VFIO_VHOST_CONFIG_REGION_INDEX), which can be used to setup the
device; 2) NOTIFY_REGION (VFIO_VHOST_NOTIFY_REGION_INDEX), which
can be used to notify the device.
1. CONFIG_REGION
The region described by CONFIG_REGION is the main control interface.
Messages will be written to or read from this region.
The message type is determined by the `request` field in message
header. The message size is encoded in the message header too.
The message format looks like this:
struct vhost_vfio_op {
__u64 request;
__u32 flags;
/* Flag values: */
#define VHOST_VFIO_NEED_REPLY 0x1 /* Whether need reply */
__u32 size;
union {
__u64 u64;
struct vhost_vring_state state;
struct vhost_vring_addr addr;
} payload;
};
The existing vhost-kernel ioctl cmds are reused as the message
requests in above structure.
Still a comments like V1. What's the advantage of inventing a new protocol?
I'm trying to make it work in VFIO's way..
I believe either of the following should be better:
- using vhost ioctl, we can start from SET_VRING_KICK/SET_VRING_CALL and
extend it with e.g notify region. The advantages is that all exist userspace
program could be reused without modification (or minimal modification). And
vhost API hides lots of details that is not necessary to be understood by
application (e.g in the case of container).
Do you mean reusing vhost's ioctl on VFIO device fd directly,
or introducing another mdev driver (i.e. vhost_mdev instead of
using the existing vfio_mdev) for mdev device?
Can we simply add them into ioctl of mdev_parent_ops?
Right, either way, these ioctls have to be and just need to be
added in the ioctl of the mdev_parent_ops. But another thing we
also need to consider is that which file descriptor the userspace
will do the ioctl() on. So I'm wondering do you mean let the
userspace do the ioctl() on the VFIO device fd of the mdev
device?
Yes.
Got it! I'm not sure what's Alex opinion on this. If we all
agree with this, I can do it in this way.
Is there any other way btw?
Just a quick thought.. Maybe totally a bad idea. I was thinking
whether it would be odd to do non-VFIO's ioctls on VFIO's device
fd. So I was wondering whether it's possible to allow binding
another mdev driver (e.g. vhost_mdev) to the supported mdev
devices. The new mdev driver, vhost_mdev, can provide similar
ways to let userspace open the mdev device and do the vhost ioctls
on it. To distinguish with the vfio_mdev compatible mdev devices,
the device API of the new vhost_mdev compatible mdev devices
might be e.g. "vhost-net" for net?
So in VFIO case, the device will be for passthru directly. And
in VHOST case, the device can be used to accelerate the existing
virtualized devices.
How do you think?
VFIO really can't prevent vendor specific ioctls on the device file
descriptor for mdevs, but a) we'd want to be sure the ioctl address
space can't collide with ioctls we'd use for vfio defined purposes and
b) maybe the VFIO user API isn't what you want in the first place if
you intend to mostly/entirely ignore the defined ioctl set and replace
them with your own. In the case of the latter, you're also not getting
the advantages of the existing VFIO userspace code, so why expose a
VFIO device at all.
Yeah, I totally agree.
I guess the original idea is to reuse the VFIO DMA/IOMMU API for this. Then
we have the chance to reuse vfio codes in qemu for dealing with e.g vIOMMU.
Yeah, you are right. We have several choices here:
#1. We expose a VFIO device, so we can reuse the VFIO container/group
based DMA API and potentially reuse a lot of VFIO code in QEMU.
But in this case, we have two choices for the VFIO device interface
(i.e. the interface on top of VFIO device fd):
A) we may invent a new vhost protocol (as demonstrated by the code
in this RFC) on VFIO device fd to make it work in VFIO's way,
i.e. regions and irqs.
B) Or as you proposed, instead of inventing a new vhost protocol,
we can reuse most existing vhost ioctls on the VFIO device fd
directly. There should be no conflicts between the VFIO ioctls
(type is 0x3B) and VHOST ioctls (type is 0xAF) currently.
#2. Instead of exposing a VFIO device, we may expose a VHOST device.
And we will introduce a new mdev driver vhost-mdev to do this.
It would be natural to reuse the existing kernel vhost interface
(ioctls) on it as much as possible. But we will need to invent
some APIs for DMA programming (reusing VHOST_SET_MEM_TABLE is a
choice, but it's too heavy and doesn't support vIOMMU by itself).
I'm not sure which one is the best choice we all want..
Which one (#1/A, #1/B, or #2) would you prefer?
#2 looks better. One concern is that we may end up with similar API as what
VFIO does.
Yeah, that's a major concern. If it's true, is it something
that's not acceptable?
I think not, but I don't know if any other one that care this.
And I do see some new RFC for VFIO to add more DMA API.
Is there any pointers?
I don't remember the details, but it should be something related to SVA
support in recent intel IOMMU.
Consider it was still in the stage of RFC, does it make sense if we try this
way with some sample parents?
I think it makes sense.
Just one more thought, for sample parents, vhost-net should be much more
easier in both implementation and testing.
The mdev interface does provide a general interface for creating and
managing virtual devices, vfio-mdev is just one driver on the mdev
bus. Parav (Mellanox) has been doing work on mdev-core to help clean
out vfio-isms from the interface, aiui, with the intent of implementing
another mdev bus driver for using the devices within the kernel.
Great to know this! I found below series after some searching:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/3/8/821
In above series, the new mlx5_core mdev driver will do the probe
by calling mlx5_get_core_dev() first on the parent device of the
mdev device. In vhost_mdev, maybe we can also keep track of all
the compatible mdev devices and use this info to do the probe.
I don't get why this is needed. My understanding is if we want to go this
way, there're actually two parts. 1) Vhost mdev that implements the device
managements and vhost ioctl. 2) Vhost it self, which can accept mdev fd as
it backend through VHOST_NET_SET_BACKEND.
I think with vhost-mdev (or with vfio-mdev if we agree to do vhost
ioctls on vfio device fd directly), we don't need to open /dev/vhost-net
(and there is no VHOST_NET_SET_BACKEND needed) at all. Either way,
after getting the fd of the mdev, we just need to do vhost ioctls
on it directly.
The reason I ask is that vhost-net is designed to not tied to any kind of
backend. So it's better to have a single place to deal with ioctl. But it's
not must.
I think in vhost-mdev, there is a chance for us to have a
unified interface in /dev for all vhost mediated devices
(not limited to net) in the system (similar to the case of
/dev/vfio/) instead of making it a backend of vhost-net.
For the code organization, it's possible for us to refactor
drivers/vhost/ and let it provide some APIs for parent devices
to handle generic vhost ioctls.
Yes, and separate the current kthread based software dataplane out of
the core APIs.
Thanks
Thanks,
Tiwei
Thanks
But we also need a way to allow vfio_mdev driver to distinguish
and reject the incompatible mdev devices.
One issue for this series is that it doesn't consider DMA isolation at all.
It
seems like this vhost-mdev driver might be similar, using mdev but not
necessarily vfio-mdev to expose devices. Thanks,
Yeah, I also think so!
I've cced some driver developers for their inputs. I think we need a sample
parent drivers in the next version for us to understand the full picture.
Thanks
Thanks!
Tiwei
Alex
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
