Date:   Wed, 10 Jul 2019 15:22:28 +0800
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To:     Tiwei Bie <tiwei.bie@...el.com>
Cc:     Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...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, idos@...lanox.com,
        Rob Miller <rob.miller@...adcom.com>,
        Ariel Adam <aadam@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2] vhost: introduce mdev based hardware vhost backend


On 2019/7/10 下午2:22, Tiwei Bie wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 10:26:10AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> On 2019/7/9 下午2:33, Tiwei Bie wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 10:50:38AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>> On 2019/7/8 下午2:16, Tiwei Bie wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>> I guess the original idea is to reuse the VFIO DMA/IOMMU API for this. Then
>>>> we have the chance to reuse vfio codes in qemu for dealing with e.g vIOMMU.
>>> Yeah, you are right. We have several choices here:
>>>
>>> #1. We expose a VFIO device, so we can reuse the VFIO container/group
>>>       based DMA API and potentially reuse a lot of VFIO code in QEMU.
>>>
>>>       But in this case, we have two choices for the VFIO device interface
>>>       (i.e. the interface on top of VFIO device fd):
>>>
>>>       A) we may invent a new vhost protocol (as demonstrated by the code
>>>          in this RFC) on VFIO device fd to make it work in VFIO's way,
>>>          i.e. regions and irqs.
>>>
>>>       B) Or as you proposed, instead of inventing a new vhost protocol,
>>>          we can reuse most existing vhost ioctls on the VFIO device fd
>>>          directly. There should be no conflicts between the VFIO ioctls
>>>          (type is 0x3B) and VHOST ioctls (type is 0xAF) currently.
>>>
>>> #2. Instead of exposing a VFIO device, we may expose a VHOST device.
>>>       And we will introduce a new mdev driver vhost-mdev to do this.
>>>       It would be natural to reuse the existing kernel vhost interface
>>>       (ioctls) on it as much as possible. But we will need to invent
>>>       some APIs for DMA programming (reusing VHOST_SET_MEM_TABLE is a
>>>       choice, but it's too heavy and doesn't support vIOMMU by itself).
>>>
>>> I'm not sure which one is the best choice we all want..
>>> Which one (#1/A, #1/B, or #2) would you prefer?
>>
>> #2 looks better. One concern is that we may end up with similar API as what
>> VFIO does.
> Yeah, that's a major concern. If it's true, is it something
> that's not acceptable?


I think not, but I don't know if any other one that care this.


>
>> And I do see some new RFC for VFIO to add more DMA API.
> Is there any pointers?


I don't remember the details, but it should be something related to SVA 
support in recent intel IOMMU.


>
>> Consider it was still in the stage of RFC, does it make sense if we try this
>> way with some sample parents?
> I think it makes sense.


Just one more thought, for sample parents, vhost-net should be much more 
easier in both implementation and testing.


>
>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>> I don't get why this is needed. My understanding is if we want to go this
>>>> way, there're actually two parts. 1) Vhost mdev that implements the device
>>>> managements and vhost ioctl. 2) Vhost it self, which can accept mdev fd as
>>>> it backend through VHOST_NET_SET_BACKEND.
>>> I think with vhost-mdev (or with vfio-mdev if we agree to do vhost
>>> ioctls on vfio device fd directly), we don't need to open /dev/vhost-net
>>> (and there is no VHOST_NET_SET_BACKEND needed) at all. Either way,
>>> after getting the fd of the mdev, we just need to do vhost ioctls
>>> on it directly.
>>
>> The reason I ask is that vhost-net is designed to not tied to any kind of
>> backend. So it's better to have a single place to deal with ioctl. But it's
>> not must.
> I think in vhost-mdev, there is a chance for us to have a
> unified interface in /dev for all vhost mediated devices
> (not limited to net) in the system (similar to the case of
> /dev/vfio/) instead of making it a backend of vhost-net.
>
> For the code organization, it's possible for us to refactor
> drivers/vhost/ and let it provide some APIs for parent devices
> to handle generic vhost ioctls.


Yes, and separate the current kthread based software dataplane out of 
the core APIs.

Thanks


>
> Thanks,
> Tiwei
>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>>>> But we also need a way to allow vfio_mdev driver to distinguish
>>>>> and reject the incompatible mdev devices.
>>>> One issue for this series is that it doesn't consider DMA isolation at all.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> 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!
>>>> I've cced some driver developers for their inputs. I think we need a sample
>>>> parent drivers in the next version for us to understand the full picture.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>> Tiwei
>>>>>
>>>>>> Alex

Powered by blists - more mailing lists