Date:   Mon, 8 Jul 2019 14:16:25 +0800
From:   Tiwei Bie <tiwei.bie@...el.com>
To:     Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
Cc:     Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>, mst@...hat.com,
        maxime.coquelin@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, dan.daly@...el.com,
        cunming.liang@...el.com, zhihong.wang@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v2] vhost: introduce mdev based hardware vhost backend

On Fri, Jul 05, 2019 at 08:49:46AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 14:21:34 +0800
> Tiwei Bie <tiwei.bie@...el.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 12:31:48PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > On 2019/7/3 下午9:08, Tiwei Bie wrote:  
> > > > On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 08:16:23PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:  
> > > > > On 2019/7/3 下午7:52, Tiwei Bie wrote:  
> > > > > > On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 06:09:51PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:  
> > > > > > > On 2019/7/3 下午5:13, Tiwei Bie wrote:  
> > > > > > > > Details about this can be found here:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > https://lwn.net/Articles/750770/
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > What's new in this version
> > > > > > > > ==========================
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > A new VFIO device type is introduced - vfio-vhost. This addressed
> > > > > > > > some comments from here:https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/984763/
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Below is the updated device interface:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Currently, there are two regions of this device: 1) CONFIG_REGION
> > > > > > > > (VFIO_VHOST_CONFIG_REGION_INDEX), which can be used to setup the
> > > > > > > > device; 2) NOTIFY_REGION (VFIO_VHOST_NOTIFY_REGION_INDEX), which
> > > > > > > > can be used to notify the device.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 1. CONFIG_REGION
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > The region described by CONFIG_REGION is the main control interface.
> > > > > > > > Messages will be written to or read from this region.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > The message type is determined by the `request` field in message
> > > > > > > > header. The message size is encoded in the message header too.
> > > > > > > > The message format looks like this:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > struct vhost_vfio_op {
> > > > > > > > 	__u64 request;
> > > > > > > > 	__u32 flags;
> > > > > > > > 	/* Flag values: */
> > > > > > > >     #define VHOST_VFIO_NEED_REPLY 0x1 /* Whether need reply */
> > > > > > > > 	__u32 size;
> > > > > > > > 	union {
> > > > > > > > 		__u64 u64;
> > > > > > > > 		struct vhost_vring_state state;
> > > > > > > > 		struct vhost_vring_addr addr;
> > > > > > > > 	} payload;
> > > > > > > > };
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > The existing vhost-kernel ioctl cmds are reused as the message
> > > > > > > > requests in above structure.  
> > > > > > > Still a comments like V1. What's the advantage of inventing a new protocol?  
> > > > > > I'm trying to make it work in VFIO's way..
> > > > > >   
> > > > > > > I believe either of the following should be better:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > - using vhost ioctl,  we can start from SET_VRING_KICK/SET_VRING_CALL and
> > > > > > > extend it with e.g notify region. The advantages is that all exist userspace
> > > > > > > program could be reused without modification (or minimal modification). And
> > > > > > > vhost API hides lots of details that is not necessary to be understood by
> > > > > > > application (e.g in the case of container).  
> > > > > > Do you mean reusing vhost's ioctl on VFIO device fd directly,
> > > > > > or introducing another mdev driver (i.e. vhost_mdev instead of
> > > > > > using the existing vfio_mdev) for mdev device?  
> > > > > Can we simply add them into ioctl of mdev_parent_ops?  
> > > > Right, either way, these ioctls have to be and just need to be
> > > > added in the ioctl of the mdev_parent_ops. But another thing we
> > > > also need to consider is that which file descriptor the userspace
> > > > will do the ioctl() on. So I'm wondering do you mean let the
> > > > userspace do the ioctl() on the VFIO device fd of the mdev
> > > > device?
> > > >   
> > > 
> > > Yes.  
> > 
> > Got it! I'm not sure what's Alex opinion on this. If we all
> > agree with this, I can do it in this way.
> > 
> > > Is there any other way btw?  
> > 
> > Just a quick thought.. Maybe totally a bad idea. I was thinking
> > whether it would be odd to do non-VFIO's ioctls on VFIO's device
> > fd. So I was wondering whether it's possible to allow binding
> > another mdev driver (e.g. vhost_mdev) to the supported mdev
> > devices. The new mdev driver, vhost_mdev, can provide similar
> > ways to let userspace open the mdev device and do the vhost ioctls
> > on it. To distinguish with the vfio_mdev compatible mdev devices,
> > the device API of the new vhost_mdev compatible mdev devices
> > might be e.g. "vhost-net" for net?
> > 
> > So in VFIO case, the device will be for passthru directly. And
> > in VHOST case, the device can be used to accelerate the existing
> > virtualized devices.
> > 
> > How do you think?
> 
> VFIO really can't prevent vendor specific ioctls on the device file
> descriptor for mdevs, but a) we'd want to be sure the ioctl address
> space can't collide with ioctls we'd use for vfio defined purposes and
> b) maybe the VFIO user API isn't what you want in the first place if
> you intend to mostly/entirely ignore the defined ioctl set and replace
> them with your own.  In the case of the latter, you're also not getting
> the advantages of the existing VFIO userspace code, so why expose a
> VFIO device at all.

Yeah, I totally agree.

> 
> The mdev interface does provide a general interface for creating and
> managing virtual devices, vfio-mdev is just one driver on the mdev
> bus.  Parav (Mellanox) has been doing work on mdev-core to help clean
> out vfio-isms from the interface, aiui, with the intent of implementing
> another mdev bus driver for using the devices within the kernel.

Great to know this! I found below series after some searching:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/3/8/821

In above series, the new mlx5_core mdev driver will do the probe
by calling mlx5_get_core_dev() first on the parent device of the
mdev device. In vhost_mdev, maybe we can also keep track of all
the compatible mdev devices and use this info to do the probe.
But we also need a way to allow vfio_mdev driver to distinguish
and reject the incompatible mdev devices.

> It
> seems like this vhost-mdev driver might be similar, using mdev but not
> necessarily vfio-mdev to expose devices.  Thanks,

Yeah, I also think so!

Thanks!
Tiwei

> 
> Alex

Powered by blists - more mailing lists