Date:   Tue, 24 May 2022 09:38:09 +0200
From:   Eugenio Perez Martin <eperezma@...hat.com>
To:     Si-Wei Liu <si-wei.liu@...cle.com>
Cc:     virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>,
        Longpeng <longpeng2@...wei.com>,
        Zhu Lingshan <lingshan.zhu@...el.com>,
        Martin Petrus Hubertus Habets <martinh@...inx.com>,
        Harpreet Singh Anand <hanand@...inx.com>, dinang@...inx.com,
        Eli Cohen <elic@...dia.com>,
        Laurent Vivier <lvivier@...hat.com>, pabloc@...inx.com,
        "Dawar, Gautam" <gautam.dawar@....com>,
        Xie Yongji <xieyongji@...edance.com>, habetsm.xilinx@...il.com,
        Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>,
        tanuj.kamde@....com, Wu Zongyong <wuzongyong@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        martinpo@...inx.com, Cindy Lu <lulu@...hat.com>,
        ecree.xilinx@...il.com, Parav Pandit <parav@...dia.com>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        Zhang Min <zhang.min9@....com.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] vdpa: Add stop operation

On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 2:01 AM Si-Wei Liu <si-wei.liu@...cle.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/23/2022 4:54 PM, Si-Wei Liu wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 5/23/2022 12:20 PM, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote:
> >> On Sat, May 21, 2022 at 12:13 PM Si-Wei Liu <si-wei.liu@...cle.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 5/20/2022 10:23 AM, Eugenio Pérez wrote:
> >>>> This operation is optional: It it's not implemented, backend
> >>>> feature bit
> >>>> will not be exposed.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Eugenio Pérez <eperezma@...hat.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>    include/linux/vdpa.h | 6 ++++++
> >>>>    1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/include/linux/vdpa.h b/include/linux/vdpa.h
> >>>> index 15af802d41c4..ddfebc4e1e01 100644
> >>>> --- a/include/linux/vdpa.h
> >>>> +++ b/include/linux/vdpa.h
> >>>> @@ -215,6 +215,11 @@ struct vdpa_map_file {
> >>>>     * @reset:                  Reset device
> >>>>     *                          @vdev: vdpa device
> >>>>     *                          Returns integer: success (0) or
> >>>> error (< 0)
> >>>> + * @stop:                    Stop or resume the device (optional,
> >>>> but it must
> >>>> + *                           be implemented if require device stop)
> >>>> + *                           @vdev: vdpa device
> >>>> + *                           @stop: stop (true), not stop (false)
> >>>> + *                           Returns integer: success (0) or error
> >>>> (< 0)
> >>> Is this uAPI meant to address all use cases described in the full blown
> >>> _F_STOP virtio spec proposal, such as:
> >>>
> >>> --------------%<--------------
> >>>
> >>> ...... the device MUST finish any in flight
> >>> operations after the driver writes STOP.  Depending on the device, it
> >>> can do it
> >>> in many ways as long as the driver can recover its normal operation
> >>> if it
> >>> resumes the device without the need of resetting it:
> >>>
> >>> - Drain and wait for the completion of all pending requests until a
> >>>     convenient avail descriptor. Ignore any other posterior descriptor.
> >>> - Return a device-specific failure for these descriptors, so the driver
> >>>     can choose to retry or to cancel them.
> >>> - Mark them as done even if they are not, if the kind of device can
> >>>     assume to lose them.
> >>> --------------%<--------------
> >>>
> >> Right, this is totally underspecified in this series.
> >>
> >> I'll expand on it in the next version, but that text proposed to
> >> virtio-comment was complicated and misleading. I find better to get
> >> the previous version description. Would the next description work?
> >>
> >> ```
> >> After the return of ioctl, the device MUST finish any pending
> >> operations like
> >> in flight requests. It must also preserve all the necessary state (the
> >> virtqueue vring base plus the possible device specific states)
> > Hmmm, "possible device specific states" is a bit vague. Does it
> > require the device to save any device internal state that is not
> > defined in the virtio spec - such as any failed in-flight requests to
> > resubmit upon resume?

I'd let that be device-specific. For example, the net simulator
doesn't need to store them, since it cannot stop while processing
buffers. Other net devices can also decide to simply drop or re-submit
tx frames.

I can check for the block simulator if that's possible too. For
hardware vdpa block devices, this should be combined with the future
"get inflight buffers" call for sure.

> > Or you would lean on SVQ to intercept it in
> > depth and save it with some other means? I think network device also
> > has internal state such as flow steering state that needs bookkeeping
> > as well.

Yes, for state set by the control vq a permanent SVQ is used only for
the cvq. For other things like config space vdpa already presents an
emulated one to the guest, so we're safe in that regard.

> Noted that I understand you may introduce additional feature call
> similar to VHOST_USER_GET_INFLIGHT_FD for (failed) in-flight request,
> but since that's is a get interface, I assume the actual state
> preserving should still take place in this STOP call.
>

Right. I'll add all of this to the proposal.

Thanks!

> -Siwei
>
> >
> > A follow-up question is what is the use of the `stop` argument of
> > false, does it require the device to support resume? I seem to recall
> > this is something to abandon in favor of device reset plus setting
> > queue base/addr after. Or it's just a optional feature that may be
> > device specific (if one can do so in simple way).
> >
> > -Siwei
> >
> >>   that is required
> >> for restoring in the future.
> >>
> >> In the future, we will provide features similar to
> >> VHOST_USER_GET_INFLIGHT_FD
> >> so the device can save pending operations.
> >> ```
> >>
> >> Thanks for pointing it out!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> E.g. do I assume correctly all in flight requests are flushed after
> >>> return from this uAPI call? Or some of pending requests may be subject
> >>> to loss or failure? How does the caller/user specify these various
> >>> options (if there are) for device stop?
> >>>
> >>> BTW, it would be nice to add the corresponding support to vdpa_sim_blk
> >>> as well to demo the stop handling. To just show it on vdpa-sim-net IMHO
> >>> is perhaps not so convincing.
> >>>
> >>> -Siwei
> >>>
> >>>>     * @get_config_size: Get the size of the configuration space
> >>>> includes
> >>>>     *                          fields that are conditional on
> >>>> feature bits.
> >>>>     *                          @vdev: vdpa device
> >>>> @@ -316,6 +321,7 @@ struct vdpa_config_ops {
> >>>>        u8 (*get_status)(struct vdpa_device *vdev);
> >>>>        void (*set_status)(struct vdpa_device *vdev, u8 status);
> >>>>        int (*reset)(struct vdpa_device *vdev);
> >>>> +     int (*stop)(struct vdpa_device *vdev, bool stop);
> >>>>        size_t (*get_config_size)(struct vdpa_device *vdev);
> >>>>        void (*get_config)(struct vdpa_device *vdev, unsigned int
> >>>> offset,
> >>>>                           void *buf, unsigned int len);
> >
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists