I've been investigating how to implement a virtio device (as opposed to
a virtio driver) on a regular computer system with a PCIe controller
that can operate in endpoint mode, as opposed to an endpoint that's
implemented by a hypervisor that can preempt execution of a VM, or an
endpoint that's implemented purely in hardware by logic gates. In my
case (and I assume likely in most CPU-driven PCIe endpoint cases), the
endpoint controller has the following capabilities:
- Host-initiated accesses to the endpoint's BARs can read/write normal
memory, but not hardware registers within the endpoint system.
- Accesses to memory exposed by BARs can't be synchronously handled by
the endpoint's local CPU. The local CPU can't be notified when the host
writes memory in order to synchronously update other memory locations.
The local CPU can't synchronously generate the result of a host read
transaction, but rather the data must be present in memory ahead of time.
- Accesses to a small region of address space can be used to generate
interrupts to the endpoint's local CPU. This region can be exposed
through a PCI BAR (or perhaps as part of a BAR; not sure on details
yet). This region of memory has a fixed format and is separate from true
RAM, and so can't be used to hold PCI-virtio's discovery/capability
data.
- The endpoint can emit PCI interrupts (e.g. MSI) to the attached host.
The model described in the virtio spec's "Virtio PCI Bus" section
doesn't seem to work in this case, since it assumes:
- Writes to some fields in the PCI configuration space (e.g.
{queue,device_feature,driver_feature}_select) synchronously update other
fields (e.g. queue_size), which can immediately be accessed by the host.
This isn't possible when the memory content is created by a CPU that
isn't a synchronous part of PCI accesses.
- Writing to some fields in the PCI configuration space (e.g.
device_status) are supposed to trigger a response by the device, without
the need to explicitly notify the device of the memory write by some
other means. This isn't possible when the endpoint's local CPU has no
mechanism to be notified of such writes.
- The device_status field is asynchronously read-write by both the
device and driver, yet the spec requires that the driver must always
read-modify-write this field, and additionally that the driver must
never clear any device status bit. These requirements seem impossible to
satisfy in any case at all, let alone the current case.
I can see some possible solutions here:
1) Just implement virtqueues but not all of the standardized PCI
discovery protocol. virtqueues don't have the problems described above
and should work fine between systems where there are asynchronous CPUs
on both ends. virtqueus solely rely on normal memory access without
side-effects and explicit notification. This would require implementing
some custom/device-specific discovery protocol. I believe that
remoteproc/rpmsg take this approach.
2) Define a new standardized virtio PCI discovery protocol that is
better suited to the device being an asynchronous CPU. For example,
eliminate the need for the device to somehow notice memory accesses and
rely on explicitl notification instead. Separate device-written and
driver-written data into different cache-lines or pages.
3) Use something other than virtio/virtqueues instead.
As an aside, I noticed that the memory allocation for virtqueues is very
lopsided; the driver always allocates the storage. This means that the
device must perform PCI reads to transfer data from the driver to the
device. PCI reads are typically slower than PCI writes since reads
require a round-trip transfer, whereas writes can be posted. I wonder if
any thought has been put into having the device optionally allocate
virtuqueue buffers so that the protocol can rely primarily on PCI
writes? Perhaps there's some alternative protocol that's more optimized
for true PCI-based communication rather than paravirtualized PCI-based
communication?
Thanks for any thoughts on the best approach, or pointers to
pre-existing work in this area.
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 03:22:29PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:> I've been investigating how to implement a virtio device (as opposed to a > virtio driver) on a regular computer system with a PCIe controller that can > operate in endpoint mode, as opposed to an endpoint that's implemented by a > hypervisor that can preempt execution of a VM, or an endpoint that's > implemented purely in hardware by logic gates. In my case (and I assume > likely in most CPU-driven PCIe endpoint cases), the endpoint controller has > the following capabilities: > > - Host-initiated accesses to the endpoint's BARs can read/write normal > memory, but not hardware registers within the endpoint system. > > - Accesses to memory exposed by BARs can't be synchronously handled by the > endpoint's local CPU. The local CPU can't be notified when the host writes > memory in order to synchronously update other memory locations. The local > CPU can't synchronously generate the result of a host read transaction, but > rather the data must be present in memory ahead of time. > > - Accesses to a small region of address space can be used to generate > interrupts to the endpoint's local CPU. This region can be exposed through a > PCI BAR (or perhaps as part of a BAR; not sure on details yet). This region > of memory has a fixed format and is separate from true RAM, and so can't be > used to hold PCI-virtio's discovery/capability data. > > - The endpoint can emit PCI interrupts (e.g. MSI) to the attached host. > > The model described in the virtio spec's "Virtio PCI Bus" section doesn't > seem to work in this case, since it assumes: > > - Writes to some fields in the PCI configuration space (e.g. > {queue,device_feature,driver_feature}_select) synchronously update other > fields (e.g. queue_size), which can immediately be accessed by the host. > This isn't possible when the memory content is created by a CPU that isn't a > synchronous part of PCI accesses. > > - Writing to some fields in the PCI configuration space (e.g. device_status) > are supposed to trigger a response by the device, without the need to > explicitly notify the device of the memory write by some other means. This > isn't possible when the endpoint's local CPU has no mechanism to be notified > of such writes. > > - The device_status field is asynchronously read-write by both the device > and driver, yet the spec requires that the driver must always > read-modify-write this field, and additionally that the driver must never > clear any device status bit. These requirements seem impossible to satisfy > in any case at all, let alone the current case. > > I can see some possible solutions here: > > 1) Just implement virtqueues but not all of the standardized PCI discovery > protocol. virtqueues don't have the problems described above and should work > fine between systems where there are asynchronous CPUs on both ends. > virtqueus solely rely on normal memory access without side-effects and > explicit notification. This would require implementing some > custom/device-specific discovery protocol. I believe that remoteproc/rpmsg > take this approach. > > 2) Define a new standardized virtio PCI discovery protocol that is better > suited to the device being an asynchronous CPU. For example, eliminate the > need for the device to somehow notice memory accesses and rely on explicitl > notification instead. Separate device-written and driver-written data into > different cache-lines or pages. > > 3) Use something other than virtio/virtqueues instead. > > As an aside, I noticed that the memory allocation for virtqueues is very > lopsided; the driver always allocates the storage. This means that the > device must perform PCI reads to transfer data from the driver to the > device. PCI reads are typically slower than PCI writes since reads require a > round-trip transfer, whereas writes can be posted. I wonder if any thought > has been put into having the device optionally allocate virtuqueue buffers > so that the protocol can rely primarily on PCI writes? Perhaps there's some > alternative protocol that's more optimized for true PCI-based communication > rather than paravirtualized PCI-based communication? > > Thanks for any thoughts on the best approach, or pointers to pre-existing > work in this area.I think Jan Kiszka wanted to add ability to put some data in the PCI BAR. This was never formally proposed. Your first step IMHO should be to send these thoughts to one of the virtio TC mailing lists, that's where discussion about virtio interface extensions takes place. virtualization at lists.linux-foundation.org is mostly for Linux virtio drivers. -- MST
On 2018?03?30? 05:22, Stephen Warren wrote:> I've been investigating how to implement a virtio device (as opposed > to a virtio driver) on a regular computer system with a PCIe > controller that can operate in endpoint mode, as opposed to an > endpoint that's implemented by a hypervisor that can preempt execution > of a VM, or an endpoint that's implemented purely in hardware by logic > gates. In my case (and I assume likely in most CPU-driven PCIe > endpoint cases), the endpoint controller has the following capabilities: > > - Host-initiated accesses to the endpoint's BARs can read/write normal > memory, but not hardware registers within the endpoint system. > > - Accesses to memory exposed by BARs can't be synchronously handled by > the endpoint's local CPU. The local CPU can't be notified when the > host writes memory in order to synchronously update other memory > locations. The local CPU can't synchronously generate the result of a > host read transaction, but rather the data must be present in memory > ahead of time. > > - Accesses to a small region of address space can be used to generate > interrupts to the endpoint's local CPU. This region can be exposed > through a PCI BAR (or perhaps as part of a BAR; not sure on details > yet). This region of memory has a fixed format and is separate from > true RAM, and so can't be used to hold PCI-virtio's > discovery/capability data. > > - The endpoint can emit PCI interrupts (e.g. MSI) to the attached host. > > The model described in the virtio spec's "Virtio PCI Bus" section > doesn't seem to work in this case, since it assumes: > > - Writes to some fields in the PCI configuration space (e.g. > {queue,device_feature,driver_feature}_select) synchronously update > other fields (e.g. queue_size), which can immediately be accessed by > the host. This isn't possible when the memory content is created by a > CPU that isn't a synchronous part of PCI accesses. > > - Writing to some fields in the PCI configuration space (e.g. > device_status) are supposed to trigger a response by the device, > without the need to explicitly notify the device of the memory write > by some other means. This isn't possible when the endpoint's local CPU > has no mechanism to be notified of such writes. > > - The device_status field is asynchronously read-write by both the > device and driver, yet the spec requires that the driver must always > read-modify-write this field, and additionally that the driver must > never clear any device status bit. These requirements seem impossible > to satisfy in any case at all, let alone the current case. > > I can see some possible solutions here: > > 1) Just implement virtqueues but not all of the standardized PCI > discovery protocol. virtqueues don't have the problems described above > and should work fine between systems where there are asynchronous CPUs > on both ends. virtqueus solely rely on normal memory access without > side-effects and explicit notification. This would require > implementing some custom/device-specific discovery protocol. I believe > that remoteproc/rpmsg take this approach.Yes, kernel has already supported virtio over remoteproc. Maybe the first step is to document it in the spec. Thanks> > 2) Define a new standardized virtio PCI discovery protocol that is > better suited to the device being an asynchronous CPU. For example, > eliminate the need for the device to somehow notice memory accesses > and rely on explicitl notification instead. Separate device-written > and driver-written data into different cache-lines or pages. > > 3) Use something other than virtio/virtqueues instead. > > As an aside, I noticed that the memory allocation for virtqueues is > very lopsided; the driver always allocates the storage. This means > that the device must perform PCI reads to transfer data from the > driver to the device. PCI reads are typically slower than PCI writes > since reads require a round-trip transfer, whereas writes can be > posted. I wonder if any thought has been put into having the device > optionally allocate virtuqueue buffers so that the protocol can rely > primarily on PCI writes? Perhaps there's some alternative protocol > that's more optimized for true PCI-based communication rather than > paravirtualized PCI-based communication? > > Thanks for any thoughts on the best approach, or pointers to > pre-existing work in this area.