Virtualization - Jul 2017 - [PATCH v12 5/8] virtio-balloon: VIRTIO_BALLOON_F_SG

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 11:48:41AM +0800, Wei Wang
wrote:
> On 07/23/2017 09:45 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 03:12:43PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> > > On 07/14/2017 04:19 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 03:42:35PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> > > > > On 07/12/2017 09:56 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > So the way I see it, there are several issues:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > - internal wait - forces multiple APIs like
kick/kick_sync
> > > > > >      note how kick_sync can fail but your code
never checks return code
> > > > > > - need to re-write the last descriptor - might not
work
> > > > > >      for alternative layouts which always expose
descriptors
> > > > > >      immediately
> > > > > Probably it wasn't clear. Please let me explain the
two functions here:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 1) virtqueue_add_chain_desc(vq, head_id, prev_id,..):
> > > > > grabs a desc from the vq and inserts it to the chain
tail (which is indexed
> > > > > by
> > > > > prev_id, probably better to call it tail_id). Then, the
new added desc
> > > > > becomes
> > > > > the tail (i.e. the last desc). The _F_NEXT flag is
cleared for each desc
> > > > > when it's
> > > > > added to the chain, and set when another desc comes to
follow later.
> > > > And this only works if there are multiple rings like
> > > > avail + descriptor ring.
> > > > It won't work e.g. with the proposed new layout where
> > > > writing out a descriptor exposes it immediately.
> > > I think it can support the 1.1 proposal, too. But before getting
> > > into that, I think we first need to deep dive into the
implementation
> > > and usage of _first/next/last. The usage would need to lock the
vq
> > > from the first to the end (otherwise, the returned info about the
number
> > > of available desc in the vq, i.e. num_free, would be invalid):
> > > 
> > > lock(vq);
> > > add_first();
> > > add_next();
> > > add_last();
> > > unlock(vq);
> > > 
> > > However, I think the case isn't this simple, since we need to
check more
> > > things
> > > after each add_xx() step. For example, if only one entry is
available at the
> > > time
> > > we start to use the vq, that is, num_free is 0 after add_first(),
we
> > > wouldn't be
> > > able to add_next and add_last. So, it would work like this:
> > > 
> > > start:
> > >      ...get free page block..
> > >      lock(vq)
> > > retry:
> > >      ret = add_first(..,&num_free,);
> > >      if(ret == -ENOSPC) {
> > >          goto retry;
> > >      } else if (!num_free) {
> > >          add_chain_head();
> > >          unlock(vq);
> > >          kick & wait;
> > >          goto start;
> > >      }
> > > next_one:
> > >      ...get free page block..
> > >      add_next(..,&num_free,);
> > >      if (!num_free) {
> > >          add_chain_head();
> > >          unlock(vq);
> > >          kick & wait;
> > >          goto start;
> > >      } if (num_free == 1) {
> > >          ...get free page block..
> > >          add_last(..);
> > >          unlock(vq);
> > >          kick & wait;
> > >          goto start;
> > >      } else {
> > >          goto next_one;
> > >      }
> > > 
> > > The above seems unnecessary to me to have three different APIs.
> > > That's the reason to combine them into one
virtqueue_add_chain_desc().
> > > 
> > > -- or, do you have a different thought about using the three
APIs?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Implementation Reference:
> > > 
> > > struct desc_iterator {
> > >      unsigned int head;
> > >      unsigned int tail;
> > > };
> > > 
> > > add_first(*vq, *desc_iterator, *num_free, ..)
> > > {
> > >      if (vq->vq.num_free < 1)
> > >          return -ENOSPC;
> > >      get_desc(&desc_id);
> > >      desc[desc_id].flag &= ~_F_NEXT;
> > >      desc_iterator->head = desc_id
> > >      desc_iterator->tail = desc_iterator->head;
> > >      *num_free = vq->vq.num_free;
> > > }
> > > 
> > > add_next(vq, desc_iterator, *num_free,..)
> > > {
> > >      get_desc(&desc_id);
> > >      desc[desc_id].flag &= ~_F_NEXT;
> > >      desc[desc_iterator.tail].next = desc_id;
> > >      desc[desc_iterator->tail].flag |= _F_NEXT;
> > >      desc_iterator->tail = desc_id;
> > >      *num_free = vq->vq.num_free;
> > > }
> > > 
> > > add_last(vq, desc_iterator,..)
> > > {
> > >      get_desc(&desc_id);
> > >      desc[desc_id].flag &= ~_F_NEXT;
> > >      desc[desc_iterator.tail].next = desc_id;
> > >      desc_iterator->tail = desc_id;
> > > 
> > >      add_chain_head(); // put the desc_iterator.head to the ring
> > > }
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Best,
> > > Wei
> > OK I thought this over. While we might need these new APIs in
> > the future, I think that at the moment, there's a way to implement
> > this feature that is significantly simpler. Just add each s/g
> > as a separate input buffer.
> 
> 
> Should it be an output buffer?
Hypervisor overwrites these pages with zeroes. Therefore it is
writeable by device: DMA_FROM_DEVICE.
> I think output means from the
> driver to device (i.e. DMA_TO_DEVICE).
This part is correct I believe.
> > 
> > This needs zero new APIs.
> > 
> > I know that follow-up patches need to add a header in front
> > so you might be thinking: how am I going to add this
> > header? The answer is quite simple - add it as a separate
> > out header.
> > 
> > Host will be able to distinguish between header and pages
> > by looking at the direction, and - should we want to add
> > IN data to header - additionally size (<4K => header).
> 
> 
> I think this works fine when the cmdq is only used for
> reporting the unused pages.
> It would be an issue
> if there are other usages (e.g. report memory statistics)
> interleaving. I think one solution would be to lock the cmdq until
> a cmd usage is done ((e.g. all the unused pages are reported) ) -
> in this case, the periodically updated guest memory statistics
> may be delayed for a while occasionally when live migration starts.
> Would this be acceptable? If not, probably we can have the cmdq
> for one usage only.
> 
> 
> Best,
> Wei
OK I see, I think the issue is that reporting free pages
was structured like stats. Let's split it -
send pages on e.g. free_vq, get commands on vq shared with
stats.


-- 
MST

On 07/27/2017 01:02 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 11:48:41AM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
>> On 07/23/2017 09:45 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 03:12:43PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
>>>> On 07/14/2017 04:19 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 03:42:35PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
>>>>>> On 07/12/2017 09:56 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>>>> So the way I see it, there are several issues:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - internal wait - forces multiple APIs like
kick/kick_sync
>>>>>>>       note how kick_sync can fail but your code
never checks return code
>>>>>>> - need to re-write the last descriptor - might not
work
>>>>>>>       for alternative layouts which always expose
descriptors
>>>>>>>       immediately
>>>>>> Probably it wasn't clear. Please let me explain the
two functions here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) virtqueue_add_chain_desc(vq, head_id, prev_id,..):
>>>>>> grabs a desc from the vq and inserts it to the chain
tail (which is indexed
>>>>>> by
>>>>>> prev_id, probably better to call it tail_id). Then, the
new added desc
>>>>>> becomes
>>>>>> the tail (i.e. the last desc). The _F_NEXT flag is
cleared for each desc
>>>>>> when it's
>>>>>> added to the chain, and set when another desc comes to
follow later.
>>>>> And this only works if there are multiple rings like
>>>>> avail + descriptor ring.
>>>>> It won't work e.g. with the proposed new layout where
>>>>> writing out a descriptor exposes it immediately.
>>>> I think it can support the 1.1 proposal, too. But before
getting
>>>> into that, I think we first need to deep dive into the
implementation
>>>> and usage of _first/next/last. The usage would need to lock the
vq
>>>> from the first to the end (otherwise, the returned info about
the number
>>>> of available desc in the vq, i.e. num_free, would be invalid):
>>>>
>>>> lock(vq);
>>>> add_first();
>>>> add_next();
>>>> add_last();
>>>> unlock(vq);
>>>>
>>>> However, I think the case isn't this simple, since we need
to check more
>>>> things
>>>> after each add_xx() step. For example, if only one entry is
available at the
>>>> time
>>>> we start to use the vq, that is, num_free is 0 after
add_first(), we
>>>> wouldn't be
>>>> able to add_next and add_last. So, it would work like this:
>>>>
>>>> start:
>>>>       ...get free page block..
>>>>       lock(vq)
>>>> retry:
>>>>       ret = add_first(..,&num_free,);
>>>>       if(ret == -ENOSPC) {
>>>>           goto retry;
>>>>       } else if (!num_free) {
>>>>           add_chain_head();
>>>>           unlock(vq);
>>>>           kick & wait;
>>>>           goto start;
>>>>       }
>>>> next_one:
>>>>       ...get free page block..
>>>>       add_next(..,&num_free,);
>>>>       if (!num_free) {
>>>>           add_chain_head();
>>>>           unlock(vq);
>>>>           kick & wait;
>>>>           goto start;
>>>>       } if (num_free == 1) {
>>>>           ...get free page block..
>>>>           add_last(..);
>>>>           unlock(vq);
>>>>           kick & wait;
>>>>           goto start;
>>>>       } else {
>>>>           goto next_one;
>>>>       }
>>>>
>>>> The above seems unnecessary to me to have three different APIs.
>>>> That's the reason to combine them into one
virtqueue_add_chain_desc().
>>>>
>>>> -- or, do you have a different thought about using the three
APIs?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Implementation Reference:
>>>>
>>>> struct desc_iterator {
>>>>       unsigned int head;
>>>>       unsigned int tail;
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> add_first(*vq, *desc_iterator, *num_free, ..)
>>>> {
>>>>       if (vq->vq.num_free < 1)
>>>>           return -ENOSPC;
>>>>       get_desc(&desc_id);
>>>>       desc[desc_id].flag &= ~_F_NEXT;
>>>>       desc_iterator->head = desc_id
>>>>       desc_iterator->tail = desc_iterator->head;
>>>>       *num_free = vq->vq.num_free;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> add_next(vq, desc_iterator, *num_free,..)
>>>> {
>>>>       get_desc(&desc_id);
>>>>       desc[desc_id].flag &= ~_F_NEXT;
>>>>       desc[desc_iterator.tail].next = desc_id;
>>>>       desc[desc_iterator->tail].flag |= _F_NEXT;
>>>>       desc_iterator->tail = desc_id;
>>>>       *num_free = vq->vq.num_free;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> add_last(vq, desc_iterator,..)
>>>> {
>>>>       get_desc(&desc_id);
>>>>       desc[desc_id].flag &= ~_F_NEXT;
>>>>       desc[desc_iterator.tail].next = desc_id;
>>>>       desc_iterator->tail = desc_id;
>>>>
>>>>       add_chain_head(); // put the desc_iterator.head to the
ring
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Wei
>>> OK I thought this over. While we might need these new APIs in
>>> the future, I think that at the moment, there's a way to
implement
>>> this feature that is significantly simpler. Just add each s/g
>>> as a separate input buffer.
>>
>> Should it be an output buffer?
> Hypervisor overwrites these pages with zeroes. Therefore it is
> writeable by device: DMA_FROM_DEVICE.
Why would the hypervisor need to zero the buffer? I think it may only
need to read out the info(base,size).

I think it should be like this:
the cmd hdr buffer: input, because the hypervisor would write it to
send a cmd to the guest
the payload buffer: output, for the hypervisor to read the info
>> I think output means from the
>> driver to device (i.e. DMA_TO_DEVICE).
> This part is correct I believe.
>
>>> This needs zero new APIs.
>>>
>>> I know that follow-up patches need to add a header in front
>>> so you might be thinking: how am I going to add this
>>> header? The answer is quite simple - add it as a separate
>>> out header.
>>>
>>> Host will be able to distinguish between header and pages
>>> by looking at the direction, and - should we want to add
>>> IN data to header - additionally size (<4K => header).
>>
>> I think this works fine when the cmdq is only used for
>> reporting the unused pages.
>> It would be an issue
>> if there are other usages (e.g. report memory statistics)
>> interleaving. I think one solution would be to lock the cmdq until
>> a cmd usage is done ((e.g. all the unused pages are reported) ) -
>> in this case, the periodically updated guest memory statistics
>> may be delayed for a while occasionally when live migration starts.
>> Would this be acceptable? If not, probably we can have the cmdq
>> for one usage only.
>>
>>
>> Best,
>> Wei
> OK I see, I think the issue is that reporting free pages
> was structured like stats. Let's split it -
> send pages on e.g. free_vq, get commands on vq shared with
> stats.
>
Would it be better to have the "report free page" command to be sent
through the free_vq? In this case,we will have
stats_vq: for the stats usage, which is already there
free_vq: for reporting free pages.

Best,
Wei

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:50:11AM +0800, Wei Wang
wrote:
> > > > OK I thought this over. While we might need these new APIs
in
> > > > the future, I think that at the moment, there's a way to
implement
> > > > this feature that is significantly simpler. Just add each
s/g
> > > > as a separate input buffer.
> > > 
> > > Should it be an output buffer?
> > Hypervisor overwrites these pages with zeroes. Therefore it is
> > writeable by device: DMA_FROM_DEVICE.
> 
> Why would the hypervisor need to zero the buffer?
The page is supplied to hypervisor and can lose the value that
is there.  That is the definition of writeable by device.
> I think it may only
> need to read out the info(base,size).
And then do what?
> I think it should be like this:
> the cmd hdr buffer: input, because the hypervisor would write it to
> send a cmd to the guest
> the payload buffer: output, for the hypervisor to read the info
These should be split.

We have:

1. request that hypervisor sends to guest, includes ID: input
2. synchronisation header with ID sent by guest: output
3. list of pages: input

2 and 3 must be on the same VQ. 1 can come on any VQ - reusing stats VQ
might make sense.

> > > I think output means from the
> > > driver to device (i.e. DMA_TO_DEVICE).
> > This part is correct I believe.
> > 
> > > > This needs zero new APIs.
> > > > 
> > > > I know that follow-up patches need to add a header in front
> > > > so you might be thinking: how am I going to add this
> > > > header? The answer is quite simple - add it as a separate
> > > > out header.
> > > > 
> > > > Host will be able to distinguish between header and pages
> > > > by looking at the direction, and - should we want to add
> > > > IN data to header - additionally size (<4K => header).
> > > 
> > > I think this works fine when the cmdq is only used for
> > > reporting the unused pages.
> > > It would be an issue
> > > if there are other usages (e.g. report memory statistics)
> > > interleaving. I think one solution would be to lock the cmdq
until
> > > a cmd usage is done ((e.g. all the unused pages are reported) ) -
> > > in this case, the periodically updated guest memory statistics
> > > may be delayed for a while occasionally when live migration
starts.
> > > Would this be acceptable? If not, probably we can have the cmdq
> > > for one usage only.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Best,
> > > Wei
> > OK I see, I think the issue is that reporting free pages
> > was structured like stats. Let's split it -
> > send pages on e.g. free_vq, get commands on vq shared with
> > stats.
> > 
> 
> Would it be better to have the "report free page" command to be
sent
> through the free_vq? In this case,we will have
> stats_vq: for the stats usage, which is already there
> free_vq: for reporting free pages.
> 
> Best,
> Wei
See above. I would get requests on stats vq but report
free pages separately on free vq.
> 
> 
> 
>