Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-Dec-13 08:06 UTC
vdpa legacy guest support (was Re: [PATCH] vdpa/mlx5: set_features should allow reset to zero)
On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 11:02:39AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:> On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 5:26 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 05:44:15PM -0800, Si-Wei Liu wrote: > > > Sorry for reviving this ancient thread. I was kinda lost for the conclusion > > > it ended up with. I have the following questions, > > > > > > 1. legacy guest support: from the past conversations it doesn't seem the > > > support will be completely dropped from the table, is my understanding > > > correct? Actually we're interested in supporting virtio v0.95 guest for x86, > > > which is backed by the spec at > > > https://ozlabs.org/~rusty/virtio-spec/virtio-0.9.5.pdf. Though I'm not sure > > > if there's request/need to support wilder legacy virtio versions earlier > > > beyond. > > > > I personally feel it's less work to add in kernel than try to > > work around it in userspace. Jason feels differently. > > Maybe post the patches and this will prove to Jason it's not > > too terrible? > > That's one way, other than the config access before setting features, > we need to deal with other stuffs: > > 1) VIRTIO_F_ORDER_PLATFORM > 2) there could be a parent device that only support 1.0 device > > And a lot of other stuff summarized in spec 7.4 which seems not an > easy task. Various vDPA parent drivers were written under the > assumption that only modern devices are supported. > > ThanksLimiting things to x86 will likely address most issues though, won't it?> > > > > 2. suppose some form of legacy guest support needs to be there, how do we > > > deal with the bogus assumption below in vdpa_get_config() in the short term? > > > It looks one of the intuitive fix is to move the vdpa_set_features call out > > > of vdpa_get_config() to vdpa_set_config(). > > > > > > /* > > > * Config accesses aren't supposed to trigger before features are > > > set. > > > * If it does happen we assume a legacy guest. > > > */ > > > if (!vdev->features_valid) > > > vdpa_set_features(vdev, 0); > > > ops->get_config(vdev, offset, buf, len); > > > > > > I can post a patch to fix 2) if there's consensus already reached. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > -Siwei > > > > I'm not sure how important it is to change that. > > In any case it only affects transitional devices, right? > > Legacy only should not care ... > > > > > > > On 3/2/2021 2:53 AM, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > > > > > On 2021/3/2 5:47 ??, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Mar 01, 2021 at 11:56:50AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > > > On 2021/3/1 5:34 ??, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 10:24:41AM -0800, Si-Wei Liu wrote: > > > > > > > > > Detecting it isn't enough though, we will need a new ioctl to notify > > > > > > > > > the kernel that it's a legacy guest. Ugh :( > > > > > > > > Well, although I think adding an ioctl is doable, may I > > > > > > > > know what the use > > > > > > > > case there will be for kernel to leverage such info > > > > > > > > directly? Is there a > > > > > > > > case QEMU can't do with dedicate ioctls later if there's indeed > > > > > > > > differentiation (legacy v.s. modern) needed? > > > > > > > BTW a good API could be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #define VHOST_SET_ENDIAN _IOW(VHOST_VIRTIO, ?, int) > > > > > > > #define VHOST_GET_ENDIAN _IOW(VHOST_VIRTIO, ?, int) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we did it per vring but maybe that was a mistake ... > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I wonder whether it's good time to just not support > > > > > > legacy driver > > > > > > for vDPA. Consider: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) It's definition is no-normative > > > > > > 2) A lot of budren of codes > > > > > > > > > > > > So qemu can still present the legacy device since the config > > > > > > space or other > > > > > > stuffs that is presented by vhost-vDPA is not expected to be > > > > > > accessed by > > > > > > guest directly. Qemu can do the endian conversion when necessary > > > > > > in this > > > > > > case? > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > Overall I would be fine with this approach but we need to avoid breaking > > > > > working userspace, qemu releases with vdpa support are out there and > > > > > seem to work for people. Any changes need to take that into account > > > > > and document compatibility concerns. > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let me check. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I note that any hardware > > > > > implementation is already broken for legacy except on platforms with > > > > > strong ordering which might be helpful in reducing the scope. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Jason Wang
2021-Dec-13 08:57 UTC
vdpa legacy guest support (was Re: [PATCH] vdpa/mlx5: set_features should allow reset to zero)
On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 4:07 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote:> > On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 11:02:39AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 5:26 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 05:44:15PM -0800, Si-Wei Liu wrote: > > > > Sorry for reviving this ancient thread. I was kinda lost for the conclusion > > > > it ended up with. I have the following questions, > > > > > > > > 1. legacy guest support: from the past conversations it doesn't seem the > > > > support will be completely dropped from the table, is my understanding > > > > correct? Actually we're interested in supporting virtio v0.95 guest for x86, > > > > which is backed by the spec at > > > > https://ozlabs.org/~rusty/virtio-spec/virtio-0.9.5.pdf. Though I'm not sure > > > > if there's request/need to support wilder legacy virtio versions earlier > > > > beyond. > > > > > > I personally feel it's less work to add in kernel than try to > > > work around it in userspace. Jason feels differently. > > > Maybe post the patches and this will prove to Jason it's not > > > too terrible? > > > > That's one way, other than the config access before setting features, > > we need to deal with other stuffs: > > > > 1) VIRTIO_F_ORDER_PLATFORM > > 2) there could be a parent device that only support 1.0 device > > > > And a lot of other stuff summarized in spec 7.4 which seems not an > > easy task. Various vDPA parent drivers were written under the > > assumption that only modern devices are supported. > > > > Thanks > > Limiting things to x86 will likely address most issues though, won't it?For the ordering, yes. But it means we need to introduce a config option for legacy logic? And we need to deal with, as you said in another thread, kick before DRIVER_OK: E.g we had thing like this: if ((status & VIRTIO_CONFIG_S_DRIVER_OK) && !(status_old & VIRTIO_CONFIG_S_DRIVER_OK)) { ret = ifcvf_request_irq(adapter); if (ret) { Similar issues could be found in other parents. We also need to consider whether we should encourage the vendor to implement the logic. I think we can try and see how hard it is. Thanks> > > > > > > > 2. suppose some form of legacy guest support needs to be there, how do we > > > > deal with the bogus assumption below in vdpa_get_config() in the short term? > > > > It looks one of the intuitive fix is to move the vdpa_set_features call out > > > > of vdpa_get_config() to vdpa_set_config(). > > > > > > > > /* > > > > * Config accesses aren't supposed to trigger before features are > > > > set. > > > > * If it does happen we assume a legacy guest. > > > > */ > > > > if (!vdev->features_valid) > > > > vdpa_set_features(vdev, 0); > > > > ops->get_config(vdev, offset, buf, len); > > > > > > > > I can post a patch to fix 2) if there's consensus already reached. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > -Siwei > > > > > > I'm not sure how important it is to change that. > > > In any case it only affects transitional devices, right? > > > Legacy only should not care ... > > > > > > > > > > On 3/2/2021 2:53 AM, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 2021/3/2 5:47 ??, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 01, 2021 at 11:56:50AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > > > > On 2021/3/1 5:34 ??, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 10:24:41AM -0800, Si-Wei Liu wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Detecting it isn't enough though, we will need a new ioctl to notify > > > > > > > > > > the kernel that it's a legacy guest. Ugh :( > > > > > > > > > Well, although I think adding an ioctl is doable, may I > > > > > > > > > know what the use > > > > > > > > > case there will be for kernel to leverage such info > > > > > > > > > directly? Is there a > > > > > > > > > case QEMU can't do with dedicate ioctls later if there's indeed > > > > > > > > > differentiation (legacy v.s. modern) needed? > > > > > > > > BTW a good API could be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #define VHOST_SET_ENDIAN _IOW(VHOST_VIRTIO, ?, int) > > > > > > > > #define VHOST_GET_ENDIAN _IOW(VHOST_VIRTIO, ?, int) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we did it per vring but maybe that was a mistake ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I wonder whether it's good time to just not support > > > > > > > legacy driver > > > > > > > for vDPA. Consider: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) It's definition is no-normative > > > > > > > 2) A lot of budren of codes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So qemu can still present the legacy device since the config > > > > > > > space or other > > > > > > > stuffs that is presented by vhost-vDPA is not expected to be > > > > > > > accessed by > > > > > > > guest directly. Qemu can do the endian conversion when necessary > > > > > > > in this > > > > > > > case? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > Overall I would be fine with this approach but we need to avoid breaking > > > > > > working userspace, qemu releases with vdpa support are out there and > > > > > > seem to work for people. Any changes need to take that into account > > > > > > and document compatibility concerns. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let me check. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I note that any hardware > > > > > > implementation is already broken for legacy except on platforms with > > > > > > strong ordering which might be helpful in reducing the scope. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >