Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-Sep-18 14:32 UTC
[RFC v4 0/3] vhost: introduce mdev based hardware backend
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 01:51:21PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:> > On 2019/9/17 ??6:58, Tiwei Bie wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 11:32:03AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > On 2019/9/17 ??9:02, Tiwei Bie wrote: > > > > This RFC is to demonstrate below ideas, > > > > > > > > a) Build vhost-mdev on top of the same abstraction defined in > > > > the virtio-mdev series [1]; > > > > > > > > b) Introduce /dev/vhost-mdev to do vhost ioctls and support > > > > setting mdev device as backend; > > > > > > > > Now the userspace API looks like this: > > > > > > > > - Userspace generates a compatible mdev device; > > > > > > > > - Userspace opens this mdev device with VFIO API (including > > > > doing IOMMU programming for this mdev device with VFIO's > > > > container/group based interface); > > > > > > > > - Userspace opens /dev/vhost-mdev and gets vhost fd; > > > > > > > > - Userspace uses vhost ioctls to setup vhost (userspace should > > > > do VHOST_MDEV_SET_BACKEND ioctl with VFIO group fd and device > > > > fd first before doing other vhost ioctls); > > > > > > > > Only compile test has been done for this series for now. > > > > > > Have a hard thought on the architecture: > > Thanks a lot! Do appreciate it! > > > > > 1) Create a vhost char device and pass vfio mdev device fd to it as a > > > backend and translate vhost-mdev ioctl to virtio mdev transport (e.g > > > read/write). DMA was done through the VFIO DMA mapping on the container that > > > is attached. > > Yeah, that's what we are doing in this series. > > > > > We have two more choices: > > > > > > 2) Use vfio-mdev but do not create vhost-mdev device, instead, just > > > implement vhost ioctl on vfio_device_ops, and translate them into > > > virtio-mdev transport or just pass ioctl to parent. > > Yeah. Instead of introducing /dev/vhost-mdev char device, do > > vhost ioctls on VFIO device fd directly. That's what we did > > in RFC v3. > > > > > 3) Don't use vfio-mdev, create a new vhost-mdev driver, during probe still > > > try to add dev to vfio group and talk to parent with device specific ops > > If my understanding is correct, this means we need to introduce > > a new VFIO device driver to replace the existing vfio-mdev driver > > in our case. Below is a quick draft just to show my understanding: > > > > #include <linux/init.h> > > #include <linux/module.h> > > #include <linux/device.h> > > #include <linux/kernel.h> > > #include <linux/slab.h> > > #include <linux/vfio.h> > > #include <linux/mdev.h> > > > > #include "mdev_private.h" > > > > /* XXX: we need a proper way to include below vhost header. */ > > #include "../../vhost/vhost.h" > > > > static int vfio_vhost_mdev_open(void *device_data) > > { > > if (!try_module_get(THIS_MODULE)) > > return -ENODEV; > > > > /* ... */ > > vhost_dev_init(...); > > > > return 0; > > } > > > > static void vfio_vhost_mdev_release(void *device_data) > > { > > /* ... */ > > module_put(THIS_MODULE); > > } > > > > static long vfio_vhost_mdev_unlocked_ioctl(void *device_data, > > unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg) > > { > > struct mdev_device *mdev = device_data; > > struct mdev_parent *parent = mdev->parent; > > > > /* > > * Use vhost ioctls. > > * > > * We will have a different parent_ops design. > > * And potentially, we can share the same parent_ops > > * with virtio_mdev. > > */ > > switch (cmd) { > > case VHOST_GET_FEATURES: > > parent->ops->get_features(mdev, ...); > > break; > > /* ... */ > > } > > > > return 0; > > } > > > > static ssize_t vfio_vhost_mdev_read(void *device_data, char __user *buf, > > size_t count, loff_t *ppos) > > { > > /* ... */ > > return 0; > > } > > > > static ssize_t vfio_vhost_mdev_write(void *device_data, const char __user *buf, > > size_t count, loff_t *ppos) > > { > > /* ... */ > > return 0; > > } > > > > static int vfio_vhost_mdev_mmap(void *device_data, struct vm_area_struct *vma) > > { > > /* ... */ > > return 0; > > } > > > > static const struct vfio_device_ops vfio_vhost_mdev_dev_ops = { > > .name = "vfio-vhost-mdev", > > .open = vfio_vhost_mdev_open, > > .release = vfio_vhost_mdev_release, > > .ioctl = vfio_vhost_mdev_unlocked_ioctl, > > .read = vfio_vhost_mdev_read, > > .write = vfio_vhost_mdev_write, > > .mmap = vfio_vhost_mdev_mmap, > > }; > > > > static int vfio_vhost_mdev_probe(struct device *dev) > > { > > struct mdev_device *mdev = to_mdev_device(dev); > > > > /* ... */ > > return vfio_add_group_dev(dev, &vfio_vhost_mdev_dev_ops, mdev); > > } > > > > static void vfio_vhost_mdev_remove(struct device *dev) > > { > > /* ... */ > > vfio_del_group_dev(dev); > > } > > > > static struct mdev_driver vfio_vhost_mdev_driver = { > > .name = "vfio_vhost_mdev", > > .probe = vfio_vhost_mdev_probe, > > .remove = vfio_vhost_mdev_remove, > > }; > > > > static int __init vfio_vhost_mdev_init(void) > > { > > return mdev_register_driver(&vfio_vhost_mdev_driver, THIS_MODULE); > > } > > module_init(vfio_vhost_mdev_init) > > > > static void __exit vfio_vhost_mdev_exit(void) > > { > > mdev_unregister_driver(&vfio_vhost_mdev_driver); > > } > > module_exit(vfio_vhost_mdev_exit) > > > Yes, something like this basically. > > > > > So I have some questions: > > > > > > 1) Compared to method 2, what's the advantage of creating a new vhost char > > > device? I guess it's for keep the API compatibility? > > One benefit is that we can avoid doing vhost ioctls on > > VFIO device fd. > > > Yes, but any benefit from doing this?It does seem a bit more modular, but it's certainly not a big deal.> > > > > 2) For method 2, is there any easy way for user/admin to distinguish e.g > > > ordinary vfio-mdev for vhost from ordinary vfio-mdev? > > I think device-api could be a choice. > > > Ok. > > > > > > > I saw you introduce > > > ops matching helper but it's not friendly to management. > > The ops matching helper is just to check whether a given > > vfio-device is based on a mdev device. > > > > > 3) A drawback of 1) and 2) is that it must follow vfio_device_ops that > > > assumes the parameter comes from userspace, it prevents support kernel > > > virtio drivers. > > > > > > 4) So comes the idea of method 3, since it register a new vhost-mdev driver, > > > we can use device specific ops instead of VFIO ones, then we can have a > > > common API between vDPA parent and vhost-mdev/virtio-mdev drivers. > > As the above draft shows, this requires introducing a new > > VFIO device driver. I think Alex's opinion matters here. > > > Yes, it is. > > Thanks > > > > Thanks, > > Tiwei > > > > > What's your thoughts? > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > RFCv3: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11117785/ > > > > > > > > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/9/10/135 > > > > > > > > Tiwei Bie (3): > > > > vfio: support getting vfio device from device fd > > > > vfio: support checking vfio driver by device ops > > > > vhost: introduce mdev based hardware backend > > > > > > > > drivers/vfio/mdev/vfio_mdev.c | 3 +- > > > > drivers/vfio/vfio.c | 32 +++ > > > > drivers/vhost/Kconfig | 9 + > > > > drivers/vhost/Makefile | 3 + > > > > drivers/vhost/mdev.c | 462 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > drivers/vhost/vhost.c | 39 ++- > > > > drivers/vhost/vhost.h | 6 + > > > > include/linux/vfio.h | 11 + > > > > include/uapi/linux/vhost.h | 10 + > > > > include/uapi/linux/vhost_types.h | 5 + > > > > 10 files changed, 573 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > > > create mode 100644 drivers/vhost/mdev.c > > > >
Jason Wang
2019-Sep-19 13:08 UTC
[RFC v4 0/3] vhost: introduce mdev based hardware backend
On 2019/9/18 ??10:32, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:>>>> So I have some questions: >>>> >>>> 1) Compared to method 2, what's the advantage of creating a new vhost char >>>> device? I guess it's for keep the API compatibility? >>> One benefit is that we can avoid doing vhost ioctls on >>> VFIO device fd. >> Yes, but any benefit from doing this? > It does seem a bit more modular, but it's certainly not a big deal.Ok, if we go this way, it could be as simple as provide some callback to vhost, then vhost can just forward the ioctl through parent_ops.> >>>> 2) For method 2, is there any easy way for user/admin to distinguish e.g >>>> ordinary vfio-mdev for vhost from ordinary vfio-mdev? >>> I think device-api could be a choice. >> Ok. >> >> >>>> I saw you introduce >>>> ops matching helper but it's not friendly to management. >>> The ops matching helper is just to check whether a given >>> vfio-device is based on a mdev device. >>> >>>> 3) A drawback of 1) and 2) is that it must follow vfio_device_ops that >>>> assumes the parameter comes from userspace, it prevents support kernel >>>> virtio drivers. >>>> >>>> 4) So comes the idea of method 3, since it register a new vhost-mdev driver, >>>> we can use device specific ops instead of VFIO ones, then we can have a >>>> common API between vDPA parent and vhost-mdev/virtio-mdev drivers. >>> As the above draft shows, this requires introducing a new >>> VFIO device driver. I think Alex's opinion matters here.Just to clarify, a new type of mdev driver but provides dummy vfio_device_ops for VFIO to make container DMA ioctl work. Thanks>> Yes, it is. >> >> Thanks >> >>
On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 09:08:11PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:> On 2019/9/18 ??10:32, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > So I have some questions: > > > > > > > > > > 1) Compared to method 2, what's the advantage of creating a new vhost char > > > > > device? I guess it's for keep the API compatibility? > > > > One benefit is that we can avoid doing vhost ioctls on > > > > VFIO device fd. > > > Yes, but any benefit from doing this? > > It does seem a bit more modular, but it's certainly not a big deal. > > Ok, if we go this way, it could be as simple as provide some callback to > vhost, then vhost can just forward the ioctl through parent_ops. > > > > > > > > 2) For method 2, is there any easy way for user/admin to distinguish e.g > > > > > ordinary vfio-mdev for vhost from ordinary vfio-mdev? > > > > I think device-api could be a choice. > > > Ok. > > > > > > > > > > > I saw you introduce > > > > > ops matching helper but it's not friendly to management. > > > > The ops matching helper is just to check whether a given > > > > vfio-device is based on a mdev device. > > > > > > > > > 3) A drawback of 1) and 2) is that it must follow vfio_device_ops that > > > > > assumes the parameter comes from userspace, it prevents support kernel > > > > > virtio drivers. > > > > > > > > > > 4) So comes the idea of method 3, since it register a new vhost-mdev driver, > > > > > we can use device specific ops instead of VFIO ones, then we can have a > > > > > common API between vDPA parent and vhost-mdev/virtio-mdev drivers. > > > > As the above draft shows, this requires introducing a new > > > > VFIO device driver. I think Alex's opinion matters here. > > Just to clarify, a new type of mdev driver but provides dummy > vfio_device_ops for VFIO to make container DMA ioctl work.I see. Thanks! IIUC, you mean we can provide a very tiny VFIO device driver in drivers/vhost/mdev.c, e.g.: static int vfio_vhost_mdev_open(void *device_data) { if (!try_module_get(THIS_MODULE)) return -ENODEV; return 0; } static void vfio_vhost_mdev_release(void *device_data) { module_put(THIS_MODULE); } static const struct vfio_device_ops vfio_vhost_mdev_dev_ops = { .name = "vfio-vhost-mdev", .open = vfio_vhost_mdev_open, .release = vfio_vhost_mdev_release, }; static int vhost_mdev_probe(struct device *dev) { struct mdev_device *mdev = to_mdev_device(dev); ... Check the mdev device_id proposed in ... ... https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/9/12/151 ... return vfio_add_group_dev(dev, &vfio_vhost_mdev_dev_ops, mdev); } static void vhost_mdev_remove(struct device *dev) { vfio_del_group_dev(dev); } static struct mdev_driver vhost_mdev_driver = { .name = "vhost_mdev", .probe = vhost_mdev_probe, .remove = vhost_mdev_remove, }; So we can bind above mdev driver to the virtio-mdev compatible mdev devices when we want to use vhost-mdev. After binding above driver to the mdev device, we can setup IOMMU via VFIO and get VFIO device fd of this mdev device, and pass it to vhost fd (/dev/vhost-mdev) with a SET_BACKEND ioctl. Thanks, Tiwei> > Thanks > > > > > Yes, it is. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > >
Maybe Matching Threads
- [RFC v4 0/3] vhost: introduce mdev based hardware backend
- [RFC v4 0/3] vhost: introduce mdev based hardware backend
- [RFC v4 0/3] vhost: introduce mdev based hardware backend
- [RFC v4 0/3] vhost: introduce mdev based hardware backend
- [PATCH] vhost: introduce mdev based hardware backend