Message-ID: <4fc43d0f-da9e-ce16-1f26-9f0225239b75@oracle.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Dec 2021 17:05:32 -0800
From:   Si-Wei Liu <si-wei.liu@...cle.com>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:     Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>, elic@...dia.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: vdpa legacy guest support (was Re: [PATCH] vdpa/mlx5:
 set_features should allow reset to zero)



On 12/13/2021 9:06 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 05:59:45PM -0800, Si-Wei Liu wrote:
>>
>> On 12/12/2021 1:26 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://ozlabs.org/*rusty/virtio-spec/virtio-0.9.5.pdf__;fg!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!dTKmzJwwRsFM7BtSuTDu1cNly5n4XCotH0WYmidzGqHSXt40i7ZU43UcNg7GYxZg$ . 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?
>> I suppose if the vdpa vendor does support 0.95 in the datapath and ring
>> layout level and is limited to x86 only, there should be easy way out.
> Note a subtle difference: what matters is that guest, not host is x86.
> Matters for emulators which might reorder memory accesses.
> I guess this enforcement belongs in QEMU then?
Right, I mean to get started, the initial guest driver support and the 
corresponding QEMU support for transitional vdpa backend can be limited 
to x86 guest/host only. Since the config space is emulated in QEMU, I 
suppose it's not hard to enforce in QEMU. QEMU can drive GET_LEGACY, 
GET_ENDIAN et al ioctls in advance to get the capability from the 
individual vendor driver. For that, we need another negotiation protocol 
similar to vhost_user's protocol_features between the vdpa kernel and 
QEMU, way before the guest driver is ever probed and its feature 
negotiation kicks in. Not sure we need a GET_MEMORY_ORDER ioctl call 
from the device, but we can assume weak ordering for legacy at this 
point (x86 only)?

>
>> I
>> checked with Eli and other Mellanox/NVDIA folks for hardware/firmware level
>> 0.95 support, it seems all the ingredient had been there already dated back
>> to the DPDK days. The only major thing limiting is in the vDPA software that
>> the current vdpa core has the assumption around VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM for
>> a few DMA setup ops, which is virtio 1.0 only.
>>
>>>> 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 ...
>> Yes I'd like to distinguish legacy driver (suppose it is 0.95) against the
>> modern one in a transitional device model rather than being legacy only.
>> That way a v0.95 and v1.0 supporting vdpa parent can support both types of
>> guests without having to reconfigure. Or are you suggesting limit to legacy
>> only at the time of vdpa creation would simplify the implementation a lot?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Siwei
>
> I don't know for sure. Take a look at the work Halil was doing
> to try and support transitional devices with BE guests.
Hmmm, we can have those endianness ioctls defined but the initial QEMU 
implementation can be started to support x86 guest/host with little 
endian and weak memory ordering first. The real trick is to detect 
legacy guest - I am not sure if it's feasible to shift all the legacy 
detection work to QEMU, or the kernel has to be part of the detection 
(e.g. the kick before DRIVER_OK thing we have to duplicate the tracking 
effort in QEMU) as well. Let me take a further look and get back.

Meanwhile, I'll check internally to see if a legacy only model would 
work. Thanks.

Thanks,
-Siwei


>
>
>>>> On 3/2/2021 2:53 AM, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>> On 2021/3/2 5:47 下午, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 01, 2021 at 11:56:50AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2021/3/1 5:34 上午, 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
>>>>>
>>>>>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists