Linux Virtualization - Feb 2018 - [RFC PATCH v3 0/3] Enable virtio_net to act as a backup for a passthru device

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 11:38 AM, Jiri Pirko <jiri at resnulli.us>
wrote:
> Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 06:56:35PM CET, alexander.duyck at gmail.com wrote:
>>On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 8:58 AM, Jiri Pirko <jiri at resnulli.us>
wrote:
>>> Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 05:49:49PM CET, alexander.duyck at gmail.com
wrote:
>>>>On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 8:11 AM, Jiri Pirko <jiri at
resnulli.us> wrote:
>>>>> Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 04:56:48PM CET, alexander.duyck at
gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 1:51 AM, Jiri Pirko <jiri at
resnulli.us> wrote:
>>>>>>> Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:33:56PM CET, kubakici at
wp.pl wrote:
>>>>>>>>On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 21:14:10 +0100, Jiri Pirko
wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Yeah, I can see it now :( I guess that the
ship has sailed and we are
>>>>>>>>> stuck with this ugly thing forever...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Could you at least make some common code
that is shared in between
>>>>>>>>> netvsc and virtio_net so this is handled in
exacly the same way in both?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>IMHO netvsc is a vendor specific driver which
made a mistake on what
>>>>>>>>behaviour it provides (or tried to align itself
with Windows SR-IOV).
>>>>>>>>Let's not make a far, far more commonly
deployed and important driver
>>>>>>>>(virtio) bug-compatible with netvsc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah. netvsc solution is a dangerous precedent here
and in my opinition
>>>>>>> it was a huge mistake to merge it. I personally
would vote to unmerge it
>>>>>>> and make the solution based on team/bond.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>To Jiri's initial comments, I feel the same
way, in fact I've talked to
>>>>>>>>the NetworkManager guys to get auto-bonding
based on MACs handled in
>>>>>>>>user space.  I think it may very well get done
in next versions of NM,
>>>>>>>>but isn't done yet.  Stephen also raised the
point that not everybody is
>>>>>>>>using NM.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can be done in NM, networkd or other network
management tools.
>>>>>>> Even easier to do this in teamd and let them all
benefit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actually, I took a stab to implement this in teamd.
Took me like an hour
>>>>>>> and half.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can just run teamd with config option
"kidnap" like this:
>>>>>>> # teamd/teamd -c '{"kidnap": true
}'
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whenever teamd sees another netdev to appear with
the same mac as his,
>>>>>>> or whenever teamd sees another netdev to change mac
to his,
>>>>>>> it enslaves it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here's the patch (quick and dirty):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Subject: [patch teamd] teamd: introduce kidnap
feature
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri at
mellanox.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So this doesn't really address the original problem
we were trying to
>>>>>>solve. You asked earlier why the netdev name mattered
and it mostly
>>>>>>has to do with configuration. Specifically what our
patch is
>>>>>>attempting to resolve is the issue of how to allow a
cloud provider to
>>>>>>upgrade their customer to SR-IOV support and live
migration without
>>>>>>requiring them to reconfigure their guest. So the
general idea with
>>>>>>our patch is to take a VM that is running with
virtio_net only and
>>>>>>allow it to instead spawn a virtio_bypass master using
the same netdev
>>>>>>name as the original virtio, and then have the
virtio_net and VF come
>>>>>>up and be enslaved by the bypass interface. Doing it
this way we can
>>>>>>allow for multi-vendor SR-IOV live migration support
using a guest
>>>>>>that was originally configured for virtio only.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The problem with your solution is we already have
teaming and bonding
>>>>>>as you said. There is already a write-up from Red Hat on
how to do it
>>>>>>(https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_virtualization/4.1/html/virtual_machine_management_guide/sect-migrating_virtual_machines_between_hosts).
>>>>>>That is all well and good as long as you are willing to
keep around
>>>>>>two VM images, one for virtio, and one for SR-IOV with
live migration.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't need 2 images. You need only one. The one
with the team setup.
>>>>> That's it. If another netdev with the same mac appears,
teamd will
>>>>> enslave it and run traffic on it. If not, ok, you'll go
only through
>>>>> virtio_net.
>>>>
>>>>Isn't that going to cause the routing table to get messed up
when we
>>>>rearrange the netdevs? We don't want to have an significant
disruption
>>>> in traffic when we are adding/removing the VF. It seems like we
would
>>>>need to invalidate any entries that were configured for the
virtio_net
>>>>and reestablish them on the new team interface. Part of the
criteria
>>>>we have been working with is that we should be able to
transition from
>>>>having a VF to not or vice versa without seeing any significant
>>>>disruption in the traffic.
>>>
>>> What? You have routes on the team netdev. virtio_net and VF are
only
>>> slaves. What are you talking about? I don't get it :/
>>
>>So lets walk though this by example. The general idea of the base case
>>for all this is somebody starting with virtio_net, we will call the
>>interface "ens1" for now. It comes up and is assigned a dhcp
address
>>and everything works as expected. Now in order to get better
>>performance we want to add a VF "ens2", but we don't want
a new IP
>>address. Now if I understand correctly what will happen is that when
>>"ens2" appears on the system teamd will then create a new team
>>interface "team0". Before teamd can enslave ens1 it has to
down the
>
> No, you don't understand that correctly.
>
> There is always ens1 and team0. ens1 is a slave of team0. team0 is the
> interface to use, to set ip on etc.
>
> When ens2 appears, it gets enslaved to team0 as well.
>
>
>>interface if I understand things correctly. This means that we have to
>>disrupt network traffic in order for this to work.
>>
>>To give you an idea of where we were before this became about trying
>>to do this in the team or bonding driver, we were debating a 2 netdev
>>model versus a 3 netdev model. I will call out the model and the
>>advantages/disadvantages of those below.
>>
>>2 Netdev model, "ens1", enslaves "ens2".
>>- Requires dropping in-driver XDP in order to work (won't capture VF
>>traffic otherwise)
>>- VF takes performance hit for extra qdisc/Tx queue lock of virtio_net
interface
>>- If you ass-u-me (I haven't been a fan of this model if you
can't
>>tell) that it is okay to rip out in-driver XDP from virtio_net, then
>>you could transition between base virtio, virtio w/ backup bit set.
>>- Works for netvsc because they limit their features (no in-driver
>>XDP) to guarantee this works.
>>
>>3 Netdev model, "ens1", enslaves "ens1nbackup" and
"ens2"
>>- Exposes 2 netdevs "ens1" and "ens1nbackup" when
only virtio is present
>>- No extra qdisc or locking
>>- All virtio_net original functionality still present
>>- Not able to transition from virtio to virtio w/ backup without
>>disruption (requires hot-plug)
>>
>>The way I see it the only way your team setup could work would be
>>something closer to the 3 netdev model. Basically we would be
>>requiring the user to always have the team0 present in order to make
>>certain that anything like XDP would be run on the team interface
>>instead of assuming that the virtio_net could run by itself. I will
>>add it as a third option here to compare to the other 2.
>
> Yes.
>
>
>>
>>3 Netdev "team" model, "team0", enslaves
"ens1" and "ens2"
>>- Requires guest to configure teamd
>>- Exposes "team0" and "ens1" when only virtio is
present
>>- No extra qdisc or locking
>>- Doesn't require "backup" bit in virtio
>>
>>>>
>>>>Also how does this handle any static configuration? I am
assuming that
>>>>everything here assumes the team will be brought up as soon as
it is
>>>>seen and assigned a DHCP address.
>>>
>>> Again. You configure whatever you need on the team netdev.
>>
>>Just so we are clear, are you then saying that the team0 interface
>>will always be present with this configuration? You had made it sound
>
> Of course.
>
>
>>like it would disappear if you didn't have at least 2 interfaces.
>
> Where did I make it sound like that? No.
I think it was a bit of misspeak/misread specifically I am thinking of:
  You don't need 2 images. You need only one. The one with the
  team setup. That's it. If another netdev with the same mac appears,
  teamd will enslave it and run traffic on it. If not, ok, you'll go only
  through virtio_net.

I read that as there being no team if the VF wasn't present since you
would still be going through team and then virtio_net otherwise.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>The solution as you have proposed seems problematic at best. I
don't
>>>>see how the team solution works without introducing some sort of
>>>>traffic disruption to either add/remove the VF and bring up/tear
down
>>>>the team interface. At that point we might as well just give up
on
>>>>this piece of live migration support entirely since the
disruption was
>>>>what we were trying to avoid. We might as well just hotplug out
the VF
>>>>and hotplug in a virtio at the same bus device and function
number and
>>>>just let udev take care of renaming it for us. The idea was
supposed
>>>>to be a seamless transition between the two interfaces.
>>>
>>> Alex. What you are trying to do in this patchset and what netvsc
does it
>>> essentialy in-driver bonding. Same thing mechanism, rx_handler,
>>> everything. I don't really understand what are you talking
about. With
>>> use of team you will get exactly the same behaviour.
>>
>>So the goal of the "in-driver bonding" is to make the bonding
as
>>non-intrusive as possible and require as little user intervention as
>>possible. I agree that much of the handling is the same, however the
>>control structure and requirements are significantly different. That
>>has been what I have been trying to explain. You keep wanting to use
>>the existing structures, but they don't really apply cleanly because
>>they push control for the interface up into the guest, and that
>>doesn't make much sense in the case of virtualization. What is
>>happening here is that we are exposing a bond that the guest should
>>have no control over, or at least as little as possible. In addition
>>making the user have to add additional configuration in the guest
>>means that there is that much more that can go wrong if they screw it
>>up.
>>
>>The other problem here is that the transition needs to be as seamless
>>as possible between just a standard virtio_net setup and this new
>>setup. With either the team or bonding setup you end up essentially
>>forcing the guest to have the bond/team always there even if they are
>>running only a single interface. Only if they "upgrade" the VM
by
>>adding a VF then it finally gets to do anything.
>
> Yeah. There is certainly a dilemma. We have to choose between
> 1) weird and hackish in-driver semi-bonding that would be simple
>    for user.
> 2) the standard way that would be perhaps slighly more complicated
>    for user.
The problem is for us option 2 is quite a bit uglier. Basically it
means essentially telling all the distros and such that their cloud
images have to use team by default on all virtio_net interfaces. It
pretty much means we have to throw away this as a possible solution
since you are requiring guest changes that most customers/OS vendors
would ever accept.

At least with our solution it was the driver making use of the
functionality if a given feature bit was set. The teaming solution as
proposed doesn't even give us that option.
>>
>>What this comes down to for us is the following requirements:
>>1. The name of the interface cannot change when going from virtio_net,
>>to virtio_net being bypassed using a VF. We cannot create an interface
>>on top of the interface, if anything we need to push the original
>>virtio_net out of the way so that the new team interface takes its
>>place in the configuration of the system. Otherwise a VM with VF w/
>>live migration will require a different configuration than one that
>>just runs virtio_net.
>
> Team driver netdev is still the same, no name changes.
Right. Basically we need to have the renaming occur so that any
existing config gets moved to the upper interface instead of having to
rely on configuration being adjusted for the team interface.
>>2. We need some way to signal if this VM should be running in an
>>"upgraded" mode or not. We have been using the backup bit in
>>virtio_net to do that. If it isn't "upgraded" then we
don't need the
>>team/bond and we can just run with virtio_net.
>
> I don't see why the team cannot be there always.
It is more the logistical nightmare. Part of the goal here was to work
with the cloud base images that are out there such as
https://alt.fedoraproject.org/cloud/. With just the kernel changes the
overhead for this stays fairly small and would be pulled in as just a
standard part of the kernel update process. The virtio bypass only
pops up if the backup bit is present. With the team solution it
requires that the base image use the team driver on virtio_net when it
sees one. I doubt the OSVs would want to do that just because SR-IOV
isn't that popular of a case.
>>3. We cannot introduce any downtime on the interface when adding a VF
>>or removing it. The link must stay up the entire time and be able to
>>handle packets.
>
> Sure. That should be handled by the team. Whenever the VF netdev
> disappears, traffic would switch over to the virtio_net. The benefit of
> your in-driver bonding solution is that qemu can actually signal the
> guest driver that the disappearance would happen and do the switch a bit
> earlier. But that is something that might be implemented in a different
> channel where the kernel might get notification that certain pci is
> going to disappear so everyone could prepare. Just an idea.
The signaling isn't too much of an issue since we can just tweak the
link state of the VF or virtio manually to report the link up or down
prior to the hot-plug. Now that we are on the same page with the team0
interface always being there, I don't think 3 is much of a concern
with the solution as you proposed.

On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 12:57:09 -0800, Alexander Duyck
wrote:
> > I don't see why the team cannot be there always.  
> 
> It is more the logistical nightmare. Part of the goal here was to work
> with the cloud base images that are out there such as
> https://alt.fedoraproject.org/cloud/. With just the kernel changes the
> overhead for this stays fairly small and would be pulled in as just a
> standard part of the kernel update process. The virtio bypass only
> pops up if the backup bit is present. With the team solution it
> requires that the base image use the team driver on virtio_net when it
> sees one. I doubt the OSVs would want to do that just because SR-IOV
> isn't that popular of a case.
IIUC we need to monitor for a "backup hint", spawn the master, rename
it
to maintain backwards compatibility with no-VF setups and enslave the VF
if it appears.

All those sound possible from user space, the advantage of the kernel
solution right now is that it has more complete code.

Am I misunderstanding?

On 2/21/2018 6:02 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 12:57:09 -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>>> I don't see why the team cannot be there always.
>> It is more the logistical nightmare. Part of the goal here was to work
>> with the cloud base images that are out there such as
>> https://alt.fedoraproject.org/cloud/. With just the kernel changes the
>> overhead for this stays fairly small and would be pulled in as just a
>> standard part of the kernel update process. The virtio bypass only
>> pops up if the backup bit is present. With the team solution it
>> requires that the base image use the team driver on virtio_net when it
>> sees one. I doubt the OSVs would want to do that just because SR-IOV
>> isn't that popular of a case.
> IIUC we need to monitor for a "backup hint", spawn the master,
rename it
> to maintain backwards compatibility with no-VF setups and enslave the VF
> if it appears.
>
> All those sound possible from user space, the advantage of the kernel
> solution right now is that it has more complete code.
>
> Am I misunderstanding?
I think there is some misunderstanding about the exact requirement and 
the usecase
we are trying to solve.? If the Guest is allowed to do this 
configuration, we already have
a solution with either bond/team based user space configuration.

This is to enable cloud service providers to provide a accelerated 
datapath by simply
letting to tenants to get their own images with the only requirement to 
enable their
kernels with newer virtio_net driver with BACKUP support and the VF driver.

To recap from an earlier thread, here is a response from Stephen that 
talks about the
requirement for the netvsc solution and we would like to provide similar 
solution for
KVM based cloud deployments.

 > The requirement with Azure accelerated network was that a stock 
distribution image from the
 > store must be able to run unmodified and get accelerated networking.
 >? Not sure if other environments need to work the same, but it would 
be nice.
 >? That meant no additional setup scripts (aka no bonding) and also it must
 > work transparently with hot-plug. Also there are diverse set of 
environments:
 > openstack, cloudinit, network manager and systemd. The solution had 
to not depend
 > on any one of them, but also not break any of them.

Thanks
Sridhar

Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 09:57:09PM CET, alexander.duyck at gmail.com
wrote:
>On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 11:38 AM, Jiri Pirko <jiri at resnulli.us>
wrote:
>> Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 06:56:35PM CET, alexander.duyck at gmail.com
wrote:
>>>On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 8:58 AM, Jiri Pirko <jiri at
resnulli.us> wrote:
>>>> Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 05:49:49PM CET, alexander.duyck at
gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 8:11 AM, Jiri Pirko <jiri at
resnulli.us> wrote:
>>>>>> Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 04:56:48PM CET, alexander.duyck at
gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 1:51 AM, Jiri Pirko <jiri
at resnulli.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:33:56PM CET, kubakici
at wp.pl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 21:14:10 +0100, Jiri
Pirko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, I can see it now :( I guess that
the ship has sailed and we are
>>>>>>>>>> stuck with this ugly thing forever...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Could you at least make some common
code that is shared in between
>>>>>>>>>> netvsc and virtio_net so this is
handled in exacly the same way in both?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>IMHO netvsc is a vendor specific driver
which made a mistake on what
>>>>>>>>>behaviour it provides (or tried to align
itself with Windows SR-IOV).
>>>>>>>>>Let's not make a far, far more commonly
deployed and important driver
>>>>>>>>>(virtio) bug-compatible with netvsc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yeah. netvsc solution is a dangerous precedent
here and in my opinition
>>>>>>>> it was a huge mistake to merge it. I personally
would vote to unmerge it
>>>>>>>> and make the solution based on team/bond.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>To Jiri's initial comments, I feel the
same way, in fact I've talked to
>>>>>>>>>the NetworkManager guys to get auto-bonding
based on MACs handled in
>>>>>>>>>user space.  I think it may very well get
done in next versions of NM,
>>>>>>>>>but isn't done yet.  Stephen also raised
the point that not everybody is
>>>>>>>>>using NM.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Can be done in NM, networkd or other network
management tools.
>>>>>>>> Even easier to do this in teamd and let them
all benefit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Actually, I took a stab to implement this in
teamd. Took me like an hour
>>>>>>>> and half.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You can just run teamd with config option
"kidnap" like this:
>>>>>>>> # teamd/teamd -c '{"kidnap": true
}'
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Whenever teamd sees another netdev to appear
with the same mac as his,
>>>>>>>> or whenever teamd sees another netdev to change
mac to his,
>>>>>>>> it enslaves it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here's the patch (quick and dirty):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Subject: [patch teamd] teamd: introduce kidnap
feature
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri at
mellanox.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So this doesn't really address the original
problem we were trying to
>>>>>>>solve. You asked earlier why the netdev name
mattered and it mostly
>>>>>>>has to do with configuration. Specifically what our
patch is
>>>>>>>attempting to resolve is the issue of how to allow a
cloud provider to
>>>>>>>upgrade their customer to SR-IOV support and live
migration without
>>>>>>>requiring them to reconfigure their guest. So the
general idea with
>>>>>>>our patch is to take a VM that is running with
virtio_net only and
>>>>>>>allow it to instead spawn a virtio_bypass master
using the same netdev
>>>>>>>name as the original virtio, and then have the
virtio_net and VF come
>>>>>>>up and be enslaved by the bypass interface. Doing it
this way we can
>>>>>>>allow for multi-vendor SR-IOV live migration support
using a guest
>>>>>>>that was originally configured for virtio only.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The problem with your solution is we already have
teaming and bonding
>>>>>>>as you said. There is already a write-up from Red
Hat on how to do it
>>>>>>>(https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_virtualization/4.1/html/virtual_machine_management_guide/sect-migrating_virtual_machines_between_hosts).
>>>>>>>That is all well and good as long as you are willing
to keep around
>>>>>>>two VM images, one for virtio, and one for SR-IOV
with live migration.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't need 2 images. You need only one. The one
with the team setup.
>>>>>> That's it. If another netdev with the same mac
appears, teamd will
>>>>>> enslave it and run traffic on it. If not, ok,
you'll go only through
>>>>>> virtio_net.
>>>>>
>>>>>Isn't that going to cause the routing table to get
messed up when we
>>>>>rearrange the netdevs? We don't want to have an
significant disruption
>>>>> in traffic when we are adding/removing the VF. It seems
like we would
>>>>>need to invalidate any entries that were configured for the
virtio_net
>>>>>and reestablish them on the new team interface. Part of the
criteria
>>>>>we have been working with is that we should be able to
transition from
>>>>>having a VF to not or vice versa without seeing any
significant
>>>>>disruption in the traffic.
>>>>
>>>> What? You have routes on the team netdev. virtio_net and VF are
only
>>>> slaves. What are you talking about? I don't get it :/
>>>
>>>So lets walk though this by example. The general idea of the base
case
>>>for all this is somebody starting with virtio_net, we will call the
>>>interface "ens1" for now. It comes up and is assigned a
dhcp address
>>>and everything works as expected. Now in order to get better
>>>performance we want to add a VF "ens2", but we don't
want a new IP
>>>address. Now if I understand correctly what will happen is that when
>>>"ens2" appears on the system teamd will then create a new
team
>>>interface "team0". Before teamd can enslave ens1 it has to
down the
>>
>> No, you don't understand that correctly.
>>
>> There is always ens1 and team0. ens1 is a slave of team0. team0 is the
>> interface to use, to set ip on etc.
>>
>> When ens2 appears, it gets enslaved to team0 as well.
>>
>>
>>>interface if I understand things correctly. This means that we have
to
>>>disrupt network traffic in order for this to work.
>>>
>>>To give you an idea of where we were before this became about trying
>>>to do this in the team or bonding driver, we were debating a 2
netdev
>>>model versus a 3 netdev model. I will call out the model and the
>>>advantages/disadvantages of those below.
>>>
>>>2 Netdev model, "ens1", enslaves "ens2".
>>>- Requires dropping in-driver XDP in order to work (won't
capture VF
>>>traffic otherwise)
>>>- VF takes performance hit for extra qdisc/Tx queue lock of
virtio_net interface
>>>- If you ass-u-me (I haven't been a fan of this model if you
can't
>>>tell) that it is okay to rip out in-driver XDP from virtio_net, then
>>>you could transition between base virtio, virtio w/ backup bit set.
>>>- Works for netvsc because they limit their features (no in-driver
>>>XDP) to guarantee this works.
>>>
>>>3 Netdev model, "ens1", enslaves "ens1nbackup"
and "ens2"
>>>- Exposes 2 netdevs "ens1" and "ens1nbackup"
when only virtio is present
>>>- No extra qdisc or locking
>>>- All virtio_net original functionality still present
>>>- Not able to transition from virtio to virtio w/ backup without
>>>disruption (requires hot-plug)
>>>
>>>The way I see it the only way your team setup could work would be
>>>something closer to the 3 netdev model. Basically we would be
>>>requiring the user to always have the team0 present in order to make
>>>certain that anything like XDP would be run on the team interface
>>>instead of assuming that the virtio_net could run by itself. I will
>>>add it as a third option here to compare to the other 2.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>3 Netdev "team" model, "team0", enslaves
"ens1" and "ens2"
>>>- Requires guest to configure teamd
>>>- Exposes "team0" and "ens1" when only virtio is
present
>>>- No extra qdisc or locking
>>>- Doesn't require "backup" bit in virtio
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Also how does this handle any static configuration? I am
assuming that
>>>>>everything here assumes the team will be brought up as soon
as it is
>>>>>seen and assigned a DHCP address.
>>>>
>>>> Again. You configure whatever you need on the team netdev.
>>>
>>>Just so we are clear, are you then saying that the team0 interface
>>>will always be present with this configuration? You had made it
sound
>>
>> Of course.
>>
>>
>>>like it would disappear if you didn't have at least 2
interfaces.
>>
>> Where did I make it sound like that? No.
>
>I think it was a bit of misspeak/misread specifically I am thinking of:
>  You don't need 2 images. You need only one. The one with the
>  team setup. That's it. If another netdev with the same mac appears,
>  teamd will enslave it and run traffic on it. If not, ok, you'll go
only
>  through virtio_net.
>
>I read that as there being no team if the VF wasn't present since you
>would still be going through team and then virtio_net otherwise.
team netdev is always there.

>
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The solution as you have proposed seems problematic at best.
I don't
>>>>>see how the team solution works without introducing some
sort of
>>>>>traffic disruption to either add/remove the VF and bring
up/tear down
>>>>>the team interface. At that point we might as well just give
up on
>>>>>this piece of live migration support entirely since the
disruption was
>>>>>what we were trying to avoid. We might as well just hotplug
out the VF
>>>>>and hotplug in a virtio at the same bus device and function
number and
>>>>>just let udev take care of renaming it for us. The idea was
supposed
>>>>>to be a seamless transition between the two interfaces.
>>>>
>>>> Alex. What you are trying to do in this patchset and what
netvsc does it
>>>> essentialy in-driver bonding. Same thing mechanism, rx_handler,
>>>> everything. I don't really understand what are you talking
about. With
>>>> use of team you will get exactly the same behaviour.
>>>
>>>So the goal of the "in-driver bonding" is to make the
bonding as
>>>non-intrusive as possible and require as little user intervention as
>>>possible. I agree that much of the handling is the same, however the
>>>control structure and requirements are significantly different. That
>>>has been what I have been trying to explain. You keep wanting to use
>>>the existing structures, but they don't really apply cleanly
because
>>>they push control for the interface up into the guest, and that
>>>doesn't make much sense in the case of virtualization. What is
>>>happening here is that we are exposing a bond that the guest should
>>>have no control over, or at least as little as possible. In addition
>>>making the user have to add additional configuration in the guest
>>>means that there is that much more that can go wrong if they screw
it
>>>up.
>>>
>>>The other problem here is that the transition needs to be as
seamless
>>>as possible between just a standard virtio_net setup and this new
>>>setup. With either the team or bonding setup you end up essentially
>>>forcing the guest to have the bond/team always there even if they
are
>>>running only a single interface. Only if they "upgrade"
the VM by
>>>adding a VF then it finally gets to do anything.
>>
>> Yeah. There is certainly a dilemma. We have to choose between
>> 1) weird and hackish in-driver semi-bonding that would be simple
>>    for user.
>> 2) the standard way that would be perhaps slighly more complicated
>>    for user.
>
>The problem is for us option 2 is quite a bit uglier. Basically it
>means essentially telling all the distros and such that their cloud
>images have to use team by default on all virtio_net interfaces. It
>pretty much means we have to throw away this as a possible solution
>since you are requiring guest changes that most customers/OS vendors
>would ever accept.
>
>At least with our solution it was the driver making use of the
>functionality if a given feature bit was set. The teaming solution as
>proposed doesn't even give us that option.
I understand your motivation.

>
>>>
>>>What this comes down to for us is the following requirements:
>>>1. The name of the interface cannot change when going from
virtio_net,
>>>to virtio_net being bypassed using a VF. We cannot create an
interface
>>>on top of the interface, if anything we need to push the original
>>>virtio_net out of the way so that the new team interface takes its
>>>place in the configuration of the system. Otherwise a VM with VF w/
>>>live migration will require a different configuration than one that
>>>just runs virtio_net.
>>
>> Team driver netdev is still the same, no name changes.
>
>Right. Basically we need to have the renaming occur so that any
>existing config gets moved to the upper interface instead of having to
>rely on configuration being adjusted for the team interface.
The initial name of team netdevice is totally up to you.

>
>>>2. We need some way to signal if this VM should be running in an
>>>"upgraded" mode or not. We have been using the backup bit
in
>>>virtio_net to do that. If it isn't "upgraded" then we
don't need the
>>>team/bond and we can just run with virtio_net.
>>
>> I don't see why the team cannot be there always.
>
>It is more the logistical nightmare. Part of the goal here was to work
>with the cloud base images that are out there such as
>https://alt.fedoraproject.org/cloud/. With just the kernel changes the
>overhead for this stays fairly small and would be pulled in as just a
>standard part of the kernel update process. The virtio bypass only
>pops up if the backup bit is present. With the team solution it
>requires that the base image use the team driver on virtio_net when it
>sees one. I doubt the OSVs would want to do that just because SR-IOV
>isn't that popular of a case.
Again, I undertand your motivation. Yet I don't like your solution.
But if the decision is made to do this in-driver bonding. I would like
to see it baing done some generic way:
1) share the same "in-driver bonding core" code with netvsc
   put to net/core.
2) the "in-driver bonding core" will strictly limit the functionality,
   like active-backup mode only, one vf, one backup, vf netdev type
   check (so noone could enslave a tap or anything else)
If user would need something more, he should employ team/bond.

>
>>>3. We cannot introduce any downtime on the interface when adding a
VF
>>>or removing it. The link must stay up the entire time and be able to
>>>handle packets.
>>
>> Sure. That should be handled by the team. Whenever the VF netdev
>> disappears, traffic would switch over to the virtio_net. The benefit of
>> your in-driver bonding solution is that qemu can actually signal the
>> guest driver that the disappearance would happen and do the switch a
bit
>> earlier. But that is something that might be implemented in a different
>> channel where the kernel might get notification that certain pci is
>> going to disappear so everyone could prepare. Just an idea.
>
>The signaling isn't too much of an issue since we can just tweak the
>link state of the VF or virtio manually to report the link up or down
>prior to the hot-plug. Now that we are on the same page with the team0
Oh, so you just do "ip link set vfrepresentor down" in the host.
That makes sense. I'm pretty sure that this is not implemented for all
drivers now.


>interface always being there, I don't think 3 is much of a concern
>with the solution as you proposed.

Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:54:45PM CET, gerlitz.or at gmail.com
wrote:
>On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 10:11 AM, Jiri Pirko <jiri at resnulli.us>
wrote:
>> Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 09:57:09PM CET, alexander.duyck at gmail.com
wrote:
>
>>>The signaling isn't too much of an issue since we can just tweak
the
>>>link state of the VF or virtio manually to report the link up or
down
>>>prior to the hot-plug. Now that we are on the same page with the
team0
>
>> Oh, so you just do "ip link set vfrepresentor down" in the
host.
>> That makes sense. I'm pretty sure that this is not implemented for
all
>> drivers now.
>
>mlx5 supports that, on the representor close ndo we take the VF link
>operational v-link down
>
>We should probably also put into the picture some/more aspects
>from the host side of things. The provisioning of the v-switch now
>have to deal with two channels going into the VM, the PV (virtio)
>one and the PT (VF) one.
>
>This should probably boil down to apply teaming/bonding between
>the VF representor and a PV backend device, e.g TAP.
Yes, that is correct.

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 5:07 AM, Jiri Pirko <jiri at resnulli.us>
wrote:
> Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:54:45PM CET, gerlitz.or at gmail.com wrote:
>>On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 10:11 AM, Jiri Pirko <jiri at resnulli.us>
wrote:
>>> Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 09:57:09PM CET, alexander.duyck at gmail.com
wrote:
>>
>>>>The signaling isn't too much of an issue since we can just
tweak the
>>>>link state of the VF or virtio manually to report the link up or
down
>>>>prior to the hot-plug. Now that we are on the same page with the
team0
>>
>>> Oh, so you just do "ip link set vfrepresentor down" in
the host.
>>> That makes sense. I'm pretty sure that this is not implemented
for all
>>> drivers now.
>>
>>mlx5 supports that, on the representor close ndo we take the VF link
>>operational v-link down
>>
>>We should probably also put into the picture some/more aspects
>>from the host side of things. The provisioning of the v-switch now
>>have to deal with two channels going into the VM, the PV (virtio)
>>one and the PT (VF) one.
>>
>>This should probably boil down to apply teaming/bonding between
>>the VF representor and a PV backend device, e.g TAP.
>
> Yes, that is correct.
That was my thought on it. If you wanted to you could probably even
look at making the PV the active one in the pair from the host side if
you wanted to avoid the PCIe overhead for things like
broadcast/multicast. The only limitation is that you might need to
have the bond take care of the appropriate switchdev bits so that you
still programmed rules into the hardware even if you are transmitting
down the PV side of the device.

For legacy setups I still need to work on putting together a source
mode macvlan based setup to handle acting like port representors for
the VFs and uplink.

- Alex

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:11 AM, Jiri Pirko <jiri at resnulli.us>
wrote:
> Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 09:57:09PM CET, alexander.duyck at gmail.com wrote:
>>On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 11:38 AM, Jiri Pirko <jiri at resnulli.us>
wrote:
>>> Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 06:56:35PM CET, alexander.duyck at gmail.com
wrote:
>>>>On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 8:58 AM, Jiri Pirko <jiri at
resnulli.us> wrote:
>>>>> Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 05:49:49PM CET, alexander.duyck at
gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 8:11 AM, Jiri Pirko <jiri at
resnulli.us> wrote:
>>>>>>> Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 04:56:48PM CET,
alexander.duyck at gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 1:51 AM, Jiri Pirko
<jiri at resnulli.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:33:56PM CET,
kubakici at wp.pl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 21:14:10 +0100, Jiri
Pirko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, I can see it now :( I guess
that the ship has sailed and we are
>>>>>>>>>>> stuck with this ugly thing
forever...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Could you at least make some common
code that is shared in between
>>>>>>>>>>> netvsc and virtio_net so this is
handled in exacly the same way in both?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>IMHO netvsc is a vendor specific driver
which made a mistake on what
>>>>>>>>>>behaviour it provides (or tried to align
itself with Windows SR-IOV).
>>>>>>>>>>Let's not make a far, far more
commonly deployed and important driver
>>>>>>>>>>(virtio) bug-compatible with netvsc.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yeah. netvsc solution is a dangerous
precedent here and in my opinition
>>>>>>>>> it was a huge mistake to merge it. I
personally would vote to unmerge it
>>>>>>>>> and make the solution based on team/bond.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>To Jiri's initial comments, I feel
the same way, in fact I've talked to
>>>>>>>>>>the NetworkManager guys to get
auto-bonding based on MACs handled in
>>>>>>>>>>user space.  I think it may very well
get done in next versions of NM,
>>>>>>>>>>but isn't done yet.  Stephen also
raised the point that not everybody is
>>>>>>>>>>using NM.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Can be done in NM, networkd or other
network management tools.
>>>>>>>>> Even easier to do this in teamd and let
them all benefit.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Actually, I took a stab to implement this
in teamd. Took me like an hour
>>>>>>>>> and half.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You can just run teamd with config option
"kidnap" like this:
>>>>>>>>> # teamd/teamd -c '{"kidnap":
true }'
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Whenever teamd sees another netdev to
appear with the same mac as his,
>>>>>>>>> or whenever teamd sees another netdev to
change mac to his,
>>>>>>>>> it enslaves it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Here's the patch (quick and dirty):
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Subject: [patch teamd] teamd: introduce
kidnap feature
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri at
mellanox.com>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>So this doesn't really address the original
problem we were trying to
>>>>>>>>solve. You asked earlier why the netdev name
mattered and it mostly
>>>>>>>>has to do with configuration. Specifically what
our patch is
>>>>>>>>attempting to resolve is the issue of how to
allow a cloud provider to
>>>>>>>>upgrade their customer to SR-IOV support and
live migration without
>>>>>>>>requiring them to reconfigure their guest. So
the general idea with
>>>>>>>>our patch is to take a VM that is running with
virtio_net only and
>>>>>>>>allow it to instead spawn a virtio_bypass master
using the same netdev
>>>>>>>>name as the original virtio, and then have the
virtio_net and VF come
>>>>>>>>up and be enslaved by the bypass interface.
Doing it this way we can
>>>>>>>>allow for multi-vendor SR-IOV live migration
support using a guest
>>>>>>>>that was originally configured for virtio only.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The problem with your solution is we already
have teaming and bonding
>>>>>>>>as you said. There is already a write-up from
Red Hat on how to do it
>>>>>>>>(https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_virtualization/4.1/html/virtual_machine_management_guide/sect-migrating_virtual_machines_between_hosts).
>>>>>>>>That is all well and good as long as you are
willing to keep around
>>>>>>>>two VM images, one for virtio, and one for
SR-IOV with live migration.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don't need 2 images. You need only one. The
one with the team setup.
>>>>>>> That's it. If another netdev with the same mac
appears, teamd will
>>>>>>> enslave it and run traffic on it. If not, ok,
you'll go only through
>>>>>>> virtio_net.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Isn't that going to cause the routing table to get
messed up when we
>>>>>>rearrange the netdevs? We don't want to have an
significant disruption
>>>>>> in traffic when we are adding/removing the VF. It seems
like we would
>>>>>>need to invalidate any entries that were configured for
the virtio_net
>>>>>>and reestablish them on the new team interface. Part of
the criteria
>>>>>>we have been working with is that we should be able to
transition from
>>>>>>having a VF to not or vice versa without seeing any
significant
>>>>>>disruption in the traffic.
>>>>>
>>>>> What? You have routes on the team netdev. virtio_net and VF
are only
>>>>> slaves. What are you talking about? I don't get it :/
>>>>
>>>>So lets walk though this by example. The general idea of the
base case
>>>>for all this is somebody starting with virtio_net, we will call
the
>>>>interface "ens1" for now. It comes up and is assigned
a dhcp address
>>>>and everything works as expected. Now in order to get better
>>>>performance we want to add a VF "ens2", but we
don't want a new IP
>>>>address. Now if I understand correctly what will happen is that
when
>>>>"ens2" appears on the system teamd will then create a
new team
>>>>interface "team0". Before teamd can enslave ens1 it
has to down the
>>>
>>> No, you don't understand that correctly.
>>>
>>> There is always ens1 and team0. ens1 is a slave of team0. team0 is
the
>>> interface to use, to set ip on etc.
>>>
>>> When ens2 appears, it gets enslaved to team0 as well.
>>>
>>>
>>>>interface if I understand things correctly. This means that we
have to
>>>>disrupt network traffic in order for this to work.
>>>>
>>>>To give you an idea of where we were before this became about
trying
>>>>to do this in the team or bonding driver, we were debating a 2
netdev
>>>>model versus a 3 netdev model. I will call out the model and the
>>>>advantages/disadvantages of those below.
>>>>
>>>>2 Netdev model, "ens1", enslaves "ens2".
>>>>- Requires dropping in-driver XDP in order to work (won't
capture VF
>>>>traffic otherwise)
>>>>- VF takes performance hit for extra qdisc/Tx queue lock of
virtio_net interface
>>>>- If you ass-u-me (I haven't been a fan of this model if you
can't
>>>>tell) that it is okay to rip out in-driver XDP from virtio_net,
then
>>>>you could transition between base virtio, virtio w/ backup bit
set.
>>>>- Works for netvsc because they limit their features (no
in-driver
>>>>XDP) to guarantee this works.
>>>>
>>>>3 Netdev model, "ens1", enslaves
"ens1nbackup" and "ens2"
>>>>- Exposes 2 netdevs "ens1" and "ens1nbackup"
when only virtio is present
>>>>- No extra qdisc or locking
>>>>- All virtio_net original functionality still present
>>>>- Not able to transition from virtio to virtio w/ backup without
>>>>disruption (requires hot-plug)
>>>>
>>>>The way I see it the only way your team setup could work would
be
>>>>something closer to the 3 netdev model. Basically we would be
>>>>requiring the user to always have the team0 present in order to
make
>>>>certain that anything like XDP would be run on the team
interface
>>>>instead of assuming that the virtio_net could run by itself. I
will
>>>>add it as a third option here to compare to the other 2.
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>3 Netdev "team" model, "team0", enslaves
"ens1" and "ens2"
>>>>- Requires guest to configure teamd
>>>>- Exposes "team0" and "ens1" when only
virtio is present
>>>>- No extra qdisc or locking
>>>>- Doesn't require "backup" bit in virtio
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Also how does this handle any static configuration? I am
assuming that
>>>>>>everything here assumes the team will be brought up as
soon as it is
>>>>>>seen and assigned a DHCP address.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again. You configure whatever you need on the team netdev.
>>>>
>>>>Just so we are clear, are you then saying that the team0
interface
>>>>will always be present with this configuration? You had made it
sound
>>>
>>> Of course.
>>>
>>>
>>>>like it would disappear if you didn't have at least 2
interfaces.
>>>
>>> Where did I make it sound like that? No.
>>
>>I think it was a bit of misspeak/misread specifically I am thinking of:
>>  You don't need 2 images. You need only one. The one with the
>>  team setup. That's it. If another netdev with the same mac
appears,
>>  teamd will enslave it and run traffic on it. If not, ok, you'll go
only
>>  through virtio_net.
>>
>>I read that as there being no team if the VF wasn't present since
you
>>would still be going through team and then virtio_net otherwise.
>
> team netdev is always there.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The solution as you have proposed seems problematic at
best. I don't
>>>>>>see how the team solution works without introducing some
sort of
>>>>>>traffic disruption to either add/remove the VF and bring
up/tear down
>>>>>>the team interface. At that point we might as well just
give up on
>>>>>>this piece of live migration support entirely since the
disruption was
>>>>>>what we were trying to avoid. We might as well just
hotplug out the VF
>>>>>>and hotplug in a virtio at the same bus device and
function number and
>>>>>>just let udev take care of renaming it for us. The idea
was supposed
>>>>>>to be a seamless transition between the two interfaces.
>>>>>
>>>>> Alex. What you are trying to do in this patchset and what
netvsc does it
>>>>> essentialy in-driver bonding. Same thing mechanism,
rx_handler,
>>>>> everything. I don't really understand what are you
talking about. With
>>>>> use of team you will get exactly the same behaviour.
>>>>
>>>>So the goal of the "in-driver bonding" is to make the
bonding as
>>>>non-intrusive as possible and require as little user
intervention as
>>>>possible. I agree that much of the handling is the same, however
the
>>>>control structure and requirements are significantly different.
That
>>>>has been what I have been trying to explain. You keep wanting to
use
>>>>the existing structures, but they don't really apply cleanly
because
>>>>they push control for the interface up into the guest, and that
>>>>doesn't make much sense in the case of virtualization. What
is
>>>>happening here is that we are exposing a bond that the guest
should
>>>>have no control over, or at least as little as possible. In
addition
>>>>making the user have to add additional configuration in the
guest
>>>>means that there is that much more that can go wrong if they
screw it
>>>>up.
>>>>
>>>>The other problem here is that the transition needs to be as
seamless
>>>>as possible between just a standard virtio_net setup and this
new
>>>>setup. With either the team or bonding setup you end up
essentially
>>>>forcing the guest to have the bond/team always there even if
they are
>>>>running only a single interface. Only if they
"upgrade" the VM by
>>>>adding a VF then it finally gets to do anything.
>>>
>>> Yeah. There is certainly a dilemma. We have to choose between
>>> 1) weird and hackish in-driver semi-bonding that would be simple
>>>    for user.
>>> 2) the standard way that would be perhaps slighly more complicated
>>>    for user.
>>
>>The problem is for us option 2 is quite a bit uglier. Basically it
>>means essentially telling all the distros and such that their cloud
>>images have to use team by default on all virtio_net interfaces. It
>>pretty much means we have to throw away this as a possible solution
>>since you are requiring guest changes that most customers/OS vendors
>>would ever accept.
>>
>>At least with our solution it was the driver making use of the
>>functionality if a given feature bit was set. The teaming solution as
>>proposed doesn't even give us that option.
>
> I understand your motivation.
>
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>What this comes down to for us is the following requirements:
>>>>1. The name of the interface cannot change when going from
virtio_net,
>>>>to virtio_net being bypassed using a VF. We cannot create an
interface
>>>>on top of the interface, if anything we need to push the
original
>>>>virtio_net out of the way so that the new team interface takes
its
>>>>place in the configuration of the system. Otherwise a VM with VF
w/
>>>>live migration will require a different configuration than one
that
>>>>just runs virtio_net.
>>>
>>> Team driver netdev is still the same, no name changes.
>>
>>Right. Basically we need to have the renaming occur so that any
>>existing config gets moved to the upper interface instead of having to
>>rely on configuration being adjusted for the team interface.
>
> The initial name of team netdevice is totally up to you.
>
>
>>
>>>>2. We need some way to signal if this VM should be running in an
>>>>"upgraded" mode or not. We have been using the backup
bit in
>>>>virtio_net to do that. If it isn't "upgraded" then
we don't need the
>>>>team/bond and we can just run with virtio_net.
>>>
>>> I don't see why the team cannot be there always.
>>
>>It is more the logistical nightmare. Part of the goal here was to work
>>with the cloud base images that are out there such as
>>https://alt.fedoraproject.org/cloud/. With just the kernel changes the
>>overhead for this stays fairly small and would be pulled in as just a
>>standard part of the kernel update process. The virtio bypass only
>>pops up if the backup bit is present. With the team solution it
>>requires that the base image use the team driver on virtio_net when it
>>sees one. I doubt the OSVs would want to do that just because SR-IOV
>>isn't that popular of a case.
>
> Again, I undertand your motivation. Yet I don't like your solution.
> But if the decision is made to do this in-driver bonding. I would like
> to see it baing done some generic way:
> 1) share the same "in-driver bonding core" code with netvsc
>    put to net/core.
> 2) the "in-driver bonding core" will strictly limit the
functionality,
>    like active-backup mode only, one vf, one backup, vf netdev type
>    check (so noone could enslave a tap or anything else)
> If user would need something more, he should employ team/bond.
I'll have to do some research and get back to you with our final
decision on this. There was some internal resistance to splitting out
this code as a separate module, but I think it would need to happen in
order to support multiple drivers.

Also I would be curious how Stephen feels about this. Would the
sharing of the dev, and the use of the phys_port_name on the
base/backup netdev work for netvsc? It seems like it should get them
performance gains on the VF, but I am not sure if there are any
specific requirements that mandated that they had to have 2 netdevs.

Thanks.

- Alex