Message-ID: <CACGkMEvO4cHE-_0nvT6oe6GmXukcpT=yZGM9SGpVGhjuxnTvTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 1 Aug 2022 12:50:42 +0800
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:     "Zhu, Lingshan" <lingshan.zhu@...el.com>,
        Parav Pandit <parav@...dia.com>,
        "virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org" 
        <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "xieyongji@...edance.com" <xieyongji@...edance.com>,
        "gautam.dawar@....com" <gautam.dawar@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 5/6] vDPA: answer num of queue pairs = 1 to userspace
 when VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ == 0

On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 2:41 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 01:53:51PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 11:47 AM Zhu, Lingshan <lingshan.zhu@...el.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 7/28/2022 9:21 AM, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 11:45 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > >> On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 05:50:59PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > >>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 5:03 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > >>>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 02:54:13PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > >>>>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 2:01 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 03:47:35AM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>> From: Zhu, Lingshan <lingshan.zhu@...el.com>
> > > >>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2022 10:53 PM
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> On 7/27/2022 10:17 AM, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>> From: Zhu, Lingshan <lingshan.zhu@...el.com>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2022 10:15 PM
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> On 7/26/2022 11:56 PM, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> From: Zhu, Lingshan <lingshan.zhu@...el.com>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 11:46 PM
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> When the user space which invokes netlink commands, detects that
> > > >>>>>>>>>> _MQ
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> is not supported, hence it takes max_queue_pair = 1 by itself.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I think the kernel module have all necessary information and it is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the only one which have precise information of a device, so it
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> should answer precisely than let the user space guess. The kernel
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> module should be reliable than stay silent, leave the question to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the user space
> > > >>>>>>>>>> tool.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Kernel is reliable. It doesn’t expose a config space field if the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> field doesn’t
> > > >>>>>>>>>> exist regardless of field should have default or no default.
> > > >>>>>>>>>> so when you know it is one queue pair, you should answer one, not try
> > > >>>>>>>>>> to guess.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> User space should not guess either. User space gets to see if _MQ
> > > >>>>>>>>>> present/not present. If _MQ present than get reliable data from kernel.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> If _MQ not present, it means this device has one VQ pair.
> > > >>>>>>>>>> it is still a guess, right? And all user space tools implemented this
> > > >>>>>>>>>> feature need to guess
> > > >>>>>>>>> No. it is not a guess.
> > > >>>>>>>>> It is explicitly checking the _MQ feature and deriving the value.
> > > >>>>>>>>> The code you proposed will be present in the user space.
> > > >>>>>>>>> It will be uniform for _MQ and 10 other features that are present now and
> > > >>>>>>>> in the future.
> > > >>>>>>>> MQ and other features like RSS are different. If there is no _RSS_XX, there
> > > >>>>>>>> are no attributes like max_rss_key_size, and there is not a default value.
> > > >>>>>>>> But for MQ, we know it has to be 1 wihtout _MQ.
> > > >>>>>>> "we" = user space.
> > > >>>>>>> To keep the consistency among all the config space fields.
> > > >>>>>> Actually I looked and the code some more and I'm puzzled:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>          struct virtio_net_config config = {};
> > > >>>>>>          u64 features;
> > > >>>>>>          u16 val_u16;
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>          vdpa_get_config_unlocked(vdev, 0, &config, sizeof(config));
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>          if (nla_put(msg, VDPA_ATTR_DEV_NET_CFG_MACADDR, sizeof(config.mac),
> > > >>>>>>                      config.mac))
> > > >>>>>>                  return -EMSGSIZE;
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Mac returned even without VIRTIO_NET_F_MAC
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>          val_u16 = le16_to_cpu(config.status);
> > > >>>>>>          if (nla_put_u16(msg, VDPA_ATTR_DEV_NET_STATUS, val_u16))
> > > >>>>>>                  return -EMSGSIZE;
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> status returned even without VIRTIO_NET_F_STATUS
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>          val_u16 = le16_to_cpu(config.mtu);
> > > >>>>>>          if (nla_put_u16(msg, VDPA_ATTR_DEV_NET_CFG_MTU, val_u16))
> > > >>>>>>                  return -EMSGSIZE;
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> MTU returned even without VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> What's going on here?
> > > >>>>> Probably too late to fix, but this should be fine as long as all
> > > >>>>> parents support STATUS/MTU/MAC.
> > > >>>> Why is this too late to fix.
> > > >>> If we make this conditional on the features. This may break the
> > > >>> userspace that always expects VDPA_ATTR_DEV_NET_CFG_MTU?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Thanks
> > > >> Well only on devices without MTU. I'm saying said userspace
> > > >> was reading trash on such devices anyway.
> > > > It depends on the parent actually. For example, mlx5 query the lower
> > > > mtu unconditionally:
> > > >
> > > >          err = query_mtu(mdev, &mtu);
> > > >          if (err)
> > > >                  goto err_alloc;
> > > >
> > > >          ndev->config.mtu = cpu_to_mlx5vdpa16(mvdev, mtu);
> > > >
> > > > Supporting MTU features seems to be a must for real hardware.
> > > > Otherwise the driver may not work correctly.
> > > >
> > > >> We don't generally maintain bug for bug compatiblity on a whim,
> > > >> only if userspace is actually known to break if we fix a bug.
> > > >   So I think it should be fine to make this conditional then we should
> > > > have a consistent handling of other fields like MQ.
> > > For some fields that have a default value, like MQ =1, we can return the
> > > default value.
> > > For other fields without a default value, like MAC, we return nothing.
> > >
> > > Does this sounds good? So, for MTU, if without _F_MTU, I think we can
> > > return 1500 by default.
> >
> > Or we can just read MTU from the device.
> >
> > But It looks to me Michael wants it conditional.
> >
> > Thanks
>
> I'm fine either way but let's keep it consistent. And I think
> Parav wants it conditional.

Parav, what's your opinion here?

Michale spots some in-consistent stuffs, so I think we should either

1) make all conditional, so we should change both MTU and MAC

or

2) make them unconditional, so we should only change MQ

Thanks

>
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Zhu Lingshan
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >>>>> I wonder if we can add a check in the core and fail the device
> > > >>>>> registration in this case.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Thanks
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>> MST
> > > >>>>>>
> > >
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists