From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2022 02:46:03 -0500 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] Add virtio Admin Virtqueue Message-ID: <20220209024522-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <87tudnzwq9.fsf@redhat.com> <20220128105012-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20220130043917-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20220130093740-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20220130102940-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <0a5efddd-8427-59d9-4ff2-94b0b7c57b1b@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <0a5efddd-8427-59d9-4ff2-94b0b7c57b1b@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: Jason Wang Cc: Max Gurtovoy , Cornelia Huck , virtio-comment@lists.oasis-open.org, Virtio-Dev , Parav Pandit , Shahaf Shuler , Oren Duer , Stefan Hajnoczi List-ID: On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 10:27:25AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > 在 2022/1/30 下午11:30, Michael S. Tsirkin 写道: > > On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 05:12:46PM +0200, Max Gurtovoy wrote: > > > On 1/30/2022 4:41 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 11:56:30AM +0200, Max Gurtovoy wrote: > > > > > On 1/30/2022 11:40 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 11:13:38AM +0200, Max Gurtovoy wrote: > > > > > > > On 1/29/2022 5:53 AM, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 11:52 PM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 04:49:34PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 28 2022, "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 01:14:14PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 24 2022, Max Gurtovoy wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > +\section{Admin Virtqueues}\label{sec:Basic Facilities of a Virtio Device / Admin Virtqueues} > > > > > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > > > > > +Admin virtqueue is used to send administrative commands to manipulate > > > > > > > > > > > > > +various features of the device and/or to manipulate various features, > > > > > > > > > > > > > +if possible, of another device within the same group (e.g. PCI VFs of > > > > > > > > > > > > > +a parent PCI PF device are grouped together. These devices can be > > > > > > > > > > > > > +optionally managed by its parent PCI PF using its admin virtqueue.). > > > > > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > > > > > +Use of Admin virtqueue is negotiated by the VIRTIO_F_ADMIN_VQ > > > > > > > > > > > > > +feature bit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > > > > > +Admin virtqueue index may vary among different device types. > > > > > > > > > > > > So, my understanding is: > > > > > > > > > > > > - any device type may or may not support the admin vq > > > > > > > > > > > > - if the device type wants to be able to accommodate the admin vq, it > > > > > > > > > > > > also needs to specify where it shows up when the feature is negotiated > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do we expect that eventually all device types will need to support the > > > > > > > > > > > > admin vq (if some use case comes along that will require all devices to > > > > > > > > > > > > participate, for example?) > > > > > > > > > > > I suspect yes. And that's one of the reasons why I'd rather we had a > > > > > > > > > > > device independent way to locate the admin queue. There are less > > > > > > > > > > > transports than device types. > > > > > > > > > > So, do we want to bite the bullet now and simply say that every device > > > > > > > > > > type has the admin vq as the last vq if the feature is negotiated? > > > > > > > > > > Should be straightforward for the device types that have a fixed number > > > > > > > > > > of vqs, and doable for those that have a variable amount (two device > > > > > > > > > > types are covered by this series anyway.) I think we need to put it with > > > > > > > > > > the device types, as otherwise the numbering of virtqueues could change > > > > > > > > > > in unpredictable ways with the admin vq off/on. > > > > > > > > > Well that only works once. The next thing we'll need we won't be able to > > > > > > > > > make the last one ;) So I am inclined to add a per-transport field that > > > > > > > > > gives the admin queue number. > > > > > > > > Technically, there's no need to use the same namespace for admin > > > > > > > > virtqueue if it has a dedicated notification area. If we go this way, > > > > > > > > we can simply use 0 as queue index for admin virtqueue. > > > > > > > Or we can use index 0xFFFF for admin virtqueue for compatibility. > > > > > > I think I'd prefer a register with the #. For example we might want > > > > > > to limit the # of VQs in order to pass extra data with the kick write. > > > > > So you are suggesting adding a new cfg_type (#define > > > > > VIRTIO_PCI_CAP_ADMIN_CFG 10) ? > > > > > > > > > > that will look something like: > > > > > > > > > > struct virtio_pci_admin_cfg { > > > > > > > > > >     le32 queue_index; /* read only for the driver */ > > > > > > > > > >     le16 queue_size; /* read-write */ > > > > >     le16 queue_msix_vector; /* read-write */ > > > > >     le16 queue_enable; /* read-write */ > > > > >     le16 queue_notify_off; /* read-only for driver */ > > > > >     le64 queue_desc; /* read-write */ > > > > >     le64 queue_driver; /* read-write */ > > > > >     le64 queue_device; /* read-write */ > > > > >     le16 queue_notify_data; /* read-only for driver */ > > > > >     le16 queue_reset; /* read-write */ > > > > > > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > > > instead of re-using the struct virtio_pci_common_cfg ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or do you prefer extending the struct virtio_pci_common_cfg with "le16 > > > > > admin_queue_index; /* read only for the driver */ ? > > > > The later. Other transports will need this too. > > > > > > > > > > > > Cornelia has another idea which is that instead of > > > > adding just the admin queue register to all transports, > > > > we instead add a misc_config structure to all > > > > transports. Working basically like device specific config, > > > > but being device independent. For now it will only have > > > > a single le16 admin_queue_index register. > > > > > > > > For PCI we would thus add it with VIRTIO_PCI_CAP_MISC_CFG > > > > > > > > The point here is that we are making it easier to add > > > > more fields just like admin queue index in the future. > > > OK. > > > > > > #define VIRTIO_PCI_CAP_MISC_CFG 10 > > > > > > and > > > > > > struct virtio_pci_misc_cfg { > > > le16 admin_queue_index; /* read-only for driver */ > > > }; > > > > > > Is agreed by all for V3 ? instead of the net and blk AQ index definitions. > > We need to add it to MMIO and CCW I guess too. > > > I wonder how much useful is this. > > E.g for PCI we have an equation to calculate the queue notify address, if > device choose to use dedicated notify for each queue it will probably end up > with the last queue. > > And I think the admin_queue_index should be stable regardless of the feature > that has been negotiated? > > Thanks there's only one last queue though. I wouldn't just use it and hope we don't need it for anything else. > > > > > This is Cornelia's idea, we'll need her response. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another advantage to this approach is that > > > > > > > > > we can make sure admin queue gets a page by itself (which can be good if > > > > > > > > > we want to allow access to regular vqs but not to the admin queue to > > > > > > > > > guest) even if regular vqs share a page. Will help devices use less > > > > > > > > > memory space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > MST > > > > > > > > >