Message-ID: <5A0BB8EE.4050402@intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 Nov 2017 11:47:58 +0800
From:   Wei Wang <wei.w.wang@...el.com>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
CC:     virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        qemu-devel@...gnu.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, mhocko@...nel.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mawilcox@...rosoft.com,
        david@...hat.com, penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp,
        cornelia.huck@...ibm.com, mgorman@...hsingularity.net,
        aarcange@...hat.com, amit.shah@...hat.com, pbonzini@...hat.com,
        willy@...radead.org, liliang.opensource@...il.com,
        yang.zhang.wz@...il.com, quan.xu@...yun.com,
        Nitesh Narayan Lal <nilal@...hat.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v17 6/6] virtio-balloon: VIRTIO_BALLOON_F_FREE_PAGE_VQ

On 11/15/2017 05:21 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 08:02:03PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
>> On 11/14/2017 01:32 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>> - guest2host_cmd: written by the guest to ACK to the host about the
>>>> commands that have been received. The host will clear the corresponding
>>>> bits on the host2guest_cmd register. The guest also uses this register
>>>> to send commands to the host (e.g. when finish free page reporting).
>>> I am not sure what is the role of guest2host_cmd. Reporting of
>>> the correct cmd id seems sufficient indication that guest
>>> received the start command. Not getting any more seems sufficient
>>> to detect stop.
>>>
>> I think the issue is when the host is waiting for the guest to report pages,
>> it does not know whether the guest is going to report more or the report is
>> done already. That's why we need a way to let the guest tell the host "the
>> report is done, don't wait for more", then the host continues to the next
>> step - sending the non-free pages to the destination. The following method
>> is a conclusion of other comments, with some new thought. Please have a
>> check if it is good.
> config won't work well for this IMHO.
> Writes to config register are hard to synchronize with the VQ.
> For example, guest sends free pages, host says stop, meanwhile
> guest sends stop for 1st set of pages.

I still don't see an issue with this. Please see below:
(before jumping into the discussion, just make sure I've well explained 
this point: now host-to-guest commands are done via config, and 
guest-to-host commands are done via the free page vq)

Case: Host starts to request the reporting with cmd_id=1. Some time 
later, Host writes "stop" to config, meantime guest happens to finish 
the reporting and plan to actively send a "stop" command from the 
free_page_vq().
           Essentially, this is like a sync between two threads - if we 
view the config interrupt handler as one thread, another is the free 
page reporting worker thread.

         - what the config handler does is simply:
               1.1:  WRITE_ONCE(vb->reporting_stop, true);

         - what the reporting thread will do is
               2.1:  WRITE_ONCE(vb->reporting_stop, true);
               2.2:  send_stop_to_host_via_vq();

 From the guest point of view, no matter 1.1 is executed first or 2.1 
first, it doesn't make a difference to the end result - 
vb->reporting_stop is set.

 From the host point of view, it knows that cmd_id=1 has truly stopped 
the reporting when it receives a "stop" sign via the vq.


> How about adding a buffer with "stop" in the VQ instead?
> Wastes a VQ entry which you will need to reserve for this
> but is it a big deal?

The free page vq is guest-to-host direction. Using it for host-to-guest 
requests will make it bidirectional, which will result in the same issue 
described before: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/10/11/1009 (the first response)

On the other hand, I think adding another new vq for host-to-guest 
requesting doesn't make a difference in essence, compared to using 
config (same 1.1, 2.1, 2.2 above), but will be more complicated.


>> Two new configuration registers in total:
>> - cmd_reg: the command register, combined from the previous host2guest and
>> guest2host. I think we can use the same register for host requesting and
>> guest ACKing, since the guest writing will trap to QEMU, that is, all the
>> writes to the register are performed in QEMU, and we can keep things work in
>> a correct way there.
>> - cmd_id_reg: the sequence id of the free page report command.
>>
>> -- free page report:
>>      - host requests the guest to start reporting by "cmd_reg |
>> REPORT_START";
>>      - guest ACKs to the host about receiving the start reporting request by
>> "cmd_reg | REPORT_START", host will clear the flag bit once receiving the
>> ACK.
>>      - host requests the guest to stop reporting by "cmd_reg | REPORT_STOP";
>>      - guest ACKs to the host about receiving the stop reporting request by
>> "cmd_reg | REPORT_STOP", host will clear the flag once receiving the ACK.
>>      - guest tells the host about the start of the reporting by writing "cmd
>> id" into an outbuf, which is added to the free page vq.
>>      - guest tells the host about the end of the reporting by writing "0"
>> into an outbuf, which is added to the free page vq. (we reserve "id=0" as
>> the stop sign)
>>
>> -- ballooning:
>>      - host requests the guest to start ballooning by "cmd_reg | BALLOONING";
>>      - guest ACKs to the host about receiving the request by "cmd_reg |
>> BALLOONING", host will clear the flag once receiving the ACK.
>>
>>
>> Some more explanations:
>> -- Why not let the host request the guest to start the free page reporting
>> simply by writing a new cmd id to the cmd_id_reg?
>> The configuration interrupt is shared among all the features - ballooning,
>> free page reporting, and future feature extensions which need host-to-guest
>> requests. Some features may need to add other feature specific configuration
>> registers, like free page reporting need the cmd_id_reg, which is not used
>> by ballooning. The rule here is that the feature specific registers are read
>> only when that feature is requested via the cmd_reg. For example, the
>> cmd_id_reg is read only when "cmd_reg | REPORT_START" is true. Otherwise,
>> when the driver receives a configuration interrupt, it has to read both
>> cmd_reg and cmd_id registers to know what are requested by the host - think
>> about the case that ballooning requests are sent frequently while free page
>> reporting isn't requested, the guest has to read the cmd_id register every
>> time a ballooning request is sent by the host, which is not necessary. If
>> future new features follow this style, there will be more unnecessary
>> VMexits to read the unused feature specific registers.
>> So I think it is good to have a central control of the feature request via
>> only one cmd register - reading that one is enough to know what is requested
>> by the host.
>>
> Right now you are increasing the cost of balloon request 3x though.

Not that much, I think, just a cmd register read and ACK, and this 
should be neglected compared to the ballooning time.
(I don't see a difference in the performance testing either).

Best,
Wei

Powered by blists - more mailing lists