Linux Virtualization - Mar 2023 - [PATCH v4 03/11] virtio-vdpa: Support interrupt affinity spreading mechanism

On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 11:03?AM Yongji Xie <xieyongji at bytedance.com>
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 2:28?PM Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.com>
wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 1:31?PM Xie Yongji <xieyongji at
bytedance.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > To support interrupt affinity spreading mechanism,
> > > this makes use of group_cpus_evenly() to create
> > > an irq callback affinity mask for each virtqueue
> > > of vdpa device. Then we will unify set_vq_affinity
> > > callback to pass the affinity to the vdpa device driver.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Xie Yongji <xieyongji at bytedance.com>
> >
> > Thinking hard of all the logics, I think I've found something
interesting.
> >
> > Commit ad71473d9c437 ("virtio_blk: use virtio IRQ affinity")
tries to
> > pass irq_affinity to transport specific find_vqs().  This seems a
> > layer violation since driver has no knowledge of
> >
> > 1) whether or not the callback is based on an IRQ
> > 2) whether or not the device is a PCI or not (the details are hided by
> > the transport driver)
> > 3) how many vectors could be used by a device
> >
> > This means the driver can't actually pass a real affinity masks so
the
> > commit passes a zero irq affinity structure as a hint in fact, so the
> > PCI layer can build a default affinity based that groups cpus evenly
> > based on the number of MSI-X vectors (the core logic is the
> > group_cpus_evenly). I think we should fix this by replacing the
> > irq_affinity structure with
> >
> > 1) a boolean like auto_cb_spreading
> >
> > or
> >
> > 2) queue to cpu mapping
> >
>
> But only the driver knows which queues are used in the control path
> which don't need the automatic irq affinity assignment.
Is this knowledge awarded by the transport driver now?

E.g virtio-blk uses:

        struct irq_affinity desc = { 0, };

Atleast we can tell the transport driver which vq requires automatic
irq affinity.
> So I think the
> irq_affinity structure can only be created by device drivers and
> passed to the virtio-pci/virtio-vdpa driver.
This could be not easy since the driver doesn't even know how many
interrupts will be used by the transport driver, so it can't built the
actual affinity structure.
>
> > So each transport can do its own logic based on that. Then virtio-vDPA
> > can pass that policy to VDUSE where we only need a group_cpus_evenly()
> > and avoid duplicating irq_create_affinity_masks()?
> >
>
> I don't get why we would have duplicated irq_create_affinity_masks().
I meant the create_affinity_masks() in patch 3 seems a duplication of
irq_create_affinity_masks().

Thanks
>
> Thanks,
> Yongji
>