Linux Virtualization - Jul 2019 - [RFC v2] vhost: introduce mdev based hardware vhost backend

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.bie at intel.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 12:31:48PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > On 2019/7/3 ??9:08, Tiwei Bie wrote:  
> > > > On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 08:16:23PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > On 2019/7/3 ??7:52, Tiwei Bie wrote:  
> > > > > > On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 06:09:51PM +0800, Jason
Wang wrote:
> > > > > > > On 2019/7/3 ??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.
> 
> 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.
But we also need a way to allow vfio_mdev driver to distinguish
and reject the incompatible mdev devices.
> 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!

Thanks!
Tiwei
> 
> Alex

On 2019/7/8 ??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.bie at intel.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 12:31:48PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>> On 2019/7/3 ??9:08, Tiwei Bie wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 08:16:23PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>>> On 2019/7/3 ??7:52, Tiwei Bie wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 06:09:51PM +0800, Jason
Wang wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2019/7/3 ??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.

>
>> 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.

> 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

On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 10:50:38AM +0800, Jason Wang
wrote:
> On 2019/7/8 ??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.bie at intel.com> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 12:31:48PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > On 2019/7/3 ??9:08, Tiwei Bie wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 08:16:23PM +0800, Jason
Wang wrote:
> > > > > > > On 2019/7/3 ??7:52, Tiwei Bie wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 06:09:51PM
+0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 2019/7/3 ??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?
> 
> 
> > 
> > > 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.
> 
> 
> > 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