From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55299) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yn3rz-0001LO-IR for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 07:40:09 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yn3rt-0007vc-Ca for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 07:40:07 -0400 Received: from e06smtp10.uk.ibm.com ([195.75.94.106]:50924) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yn3rt-0007uJ-0S for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 07:40:01 -0400 Received: from /spool/local by e06smtp10.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 12:39:59 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay13.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.198]) by d06dlp01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8250917D8067 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 12:40:38 +0100 (BST) Received: from d06av12.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av12.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.247]) by b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id t3SBdvlL1311072 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:39:57 GMT Received: from d06av12.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d06av12.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id t3SBdu7p000382 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 05:39:57 -0600 Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 13:39:51 +0200 From: Cornelia Huck Message-ID: <20150428133951.78b9f7e3.cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20150428124510-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> References: <1429770109-23873-1-git-send-email-jasowang@redhat.com> <1429770109-23873-9-git-send-email-jasowang@redhat.com> <20150427130441-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <1430190844.9163.3@smtp.corp.redhat.com> <20150428071225-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <1430201600.5354.0@smtp.corp.redhat.com> <20150428085941-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <20150428100415.377222a3.cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> <20150428100706-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <20150428124007.443a6555.cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> <20150428124510-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH V7 08/16] virtio: introduce bus specific queue limit List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: Jason Wang , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Alexander Graf , Christian Borntraeger , Paolo Bonzini , Richard Henderson On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 12:55:40 +0200 "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote: > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:40:07PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 10:16:04 +0200 > > "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 10:04:15AM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > > > On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 09:14:07 +0200 > > > > "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 02:13:20PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > > >On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:14:04AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > > > >> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > >> >On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 02:21:41PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > > > >> >> This patch introduces a bus specific queue limitation. It will be > > > > > > >> >> useful for increasing the limit for one of the bus without > > > > > > >>disturbing > > > > > > >> >> other buses. > > > > > > >> >> Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin > > > > > > >> >> Cc: Alexander Graf > > > > > > >> >> Cc: Richard Henderson > > > > > > >> >> Cc: Cornelia Huck > > > > > > >> >> Cc: Christian Borntraeger > > > > > > >> >> Cc: Paolo Bonzini > > > > > > >> >> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang > > > > > > >> >> Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >Is this still needed if you drop the attempt to > > > > > > >> >keep the limit around for old machine types? > > > > > > >> If we agree to drop, we probably need transport specific macro. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >You mean just rename VIRTIO_PCI_QUEUE_MAX to VIRTIO_QUEUE_MAX? > > > > > > >Fine, why not. > > > > > > > > > > > > I mean keeping VIRTIO_PCI_QUEUE_MAX for pci only and just increase pci > > > > > > limit. And introduce e.g VIRTIO_PCI_QUEUE_CCW for ccw and keep it as 64. > > > > > > Since to my understanding, it's not safe to increase the limit for all other > > > > > > transports which was pointed out by Cornelia in V1: > > > > > > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/318245. > > > > > > > > > > I think all you need is add a check to CCW_CMD_SET_IND: > > > > > limit to 64 for legacy interrupts only. > > > > > > > > It isn't that easy. > > > > > > > > What is easy is to add a check to the guest driver that fails setup for > > > > devices with more than 64 queues not using adapter interrupts. > > > > > > > > On the host side, we're lacking information when interpreting > > > > CCW_CMD_SET_IND (the command does not contain a queue count, and the > > > > actual number of virtqueues is not readily available.) > > > > > > Why isn't it available? All devices call virtio_add_queue > > > as appropriate. Just fail legacy adaptors. > > > > Because we don't know what the guest is going to use? It is free to > > use per-subchannel indicators, even if it is operating in virtio-1 mode. > > > > > > > We also can't > > > > fence off when setting up the vqs, as this happens before we know which > > > > kind of indicators the guest wants to use. > > > > > > > > More importantly, we haven't even speced what we want to do in this > > > > case. Do we want to reject SET_IND for devices with more than 64 > > > > queues? (Probably yes.) > > > > > > > > All this involves more work, and I'd prefer to do Jason's changes > > > > instead as this gives us some more time to figure this out properly. > > > > > > > > And we haven't even considered s390-virtio yet, which I really want to > > > > touch as little as possible :) > > > > > > Well this patch does touch it anyway :) > > > > But only small, self-evident changes. > > > > Sorry, I don't see what you are trying to say. > There's no chance legacy interrupts work with > 64 queues. > Guests should have validated the # of queues, and not > attempted to use >64 queues. Looks like there's no > such validation in guest, right? I have no idea whether > 64 queues would work with s390-virtio - it might well work, but I'm not willing to extend any effort to verifying that. > > Solution - don't specify this configuration with legacy guests. > > Modern guests work so there's value in supporting such > configuration in QEMU, I don't see why we must deny it in QEMU. What is "legacy guest" in your context? A guest running with the legacy transport or a guest using ccw but not virtio-1? A ccw guest using adapter interrupts but not virtio-1 should be fine. > > > > For s390 just check and fail at init if you like. > > > > What about devices that may change their number of queues? I'd really > > prefer large queue numbers to be fenced off in the the individual > > devices, and for that they need to be able to grab a transport-specific > > queue limit. > > This is why I don't want bus specific limits in core, > it just makes it too easy to sweep dirt under the carpet. > s390 is legacy - fine, but don't perpetuate the issue > in devices. What is "swept under the carpet" here? A device can have min(max queues from transport, max queues from device type) queues. I think it's easier to refuse instantiating with too many queues per device type (as most will be fine with 64 queues), so I don't want that code in the transport (beyond making the limit available). For s390 I'd like in the end: - s390-virtio: legacy - keep it working as best-can-do, so I'd prefer to keep it at 64 queues, even if more might work - virtio-ccw, devices in legacy or virtio-1 mode: works with adapter interrupts, so let's fence off setting per-subchannel indicators if a device has more than 64 queues (needs work and a well thought-out rejection mechanism) That's _in the end_: I'd like to keep ccw at 64 queues _for now_ so that we don't have a rushed interface change - and at the same time, I don't want to hold off pci. Makes sense?