From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Sender: List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Received: from lists.oasis-open.org (oasis-open.org [10.110.1.242]) by lists.oasis-open.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3265498633B for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 03:53:18 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 11:53:10 +0800 From: Tony Lu Message-ID: Reply-To: Tony Lu References: <1666152510.9531486-1-xuanzhuo@linux.alibaba.com> <1666159341.0495708-1-xuanzhuo@linux.alibaba.com> <36c27c6b-e8b5-5597-d1b0-c7fd3c3388dd@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] [PATCH 0/2] introduce virtio-ism: internal shared memory device Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gb2312 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: Jason Wang Cc: Xuan Zhuo , virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org, hans@linux.alibaba.com, herongguang@linux.alibaba.com, zmlcc@linux.alibaba.com, dust.li@linux.alibaba.com, zhenzao@linux.alibaba.com, helinguo@linux.alibaba.com, gerry@linux.alibaba.com, mst@redhat.com, cohuck@redhat.com, Stefan Hajnoczi List-ID: On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 11:09:19AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 11:05 AM Tony Lu wrote= : > > > > On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 10:47:29AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 6:01 PM Tony Lu wr= ote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 05:04:58PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > > > > > > > =D4=DA 2022/10/19 16:07, Tony Lu =D0=B4=B5=C0: > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 02:02:21PM +0800, Xuan Zhuo wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 12:36:35 +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 12:22 PM Xuan Zhuo wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 11:56:52 +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 10:42 AM Xuan Zhuo wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 16:17:31 +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jason, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think there may be some problems with the direction= we are discussing. > > > > > > > > > > Probably not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As far as we are focusing on technology, there's nothin= g wrong from my > > > > > > > > > > perspective. And this is how the community works. Your = idea needs to > > > > > > > > > > be justified and people are free to raise any technical= questions > > > > > > > > > > especially considering you've posted a spec change with= prototype > > > > > > > > > > codes but not only the idea. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Our > > > > > > > > > > > goal is to add an new ism device. As far as the spec = is concerned, we are not > > > > > > > > > > > concerned with the implementation of the backend. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The direction we should discuss is what is the differ= ence between the ism device > > > > > > > > > > > and other devices such as virtio-net, and whether it = is necessary to introduce > > > > > > > > > > > this new device. > > > > > > > > > > This is somehow what I want to ask, actually it's not a= comparison > > > > > > > > > > with virtio-net but: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - virtio-roce > > > > > > > > > > - virtio-vhost-user > > > > > > > > > > - virtio-(p)mem > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or whether we can simply add features to those devices = to achieve what > > > > > > > > > > you want to do here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, this is my priority to discuss. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At the moment, I think the most similar to ism is the Vho= st-user Device Backend > > > > > > > > > of virtio-vhost-user. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My understanding of it is to map any virtio device to ano= ther vm as a vvu > > > > > > > > > device. > > > > > > > > Yes, so a possible way is to have a device with memory zone= /region > > > > > > > > provision and management then map it via virtio-vhost-user. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, there is such a possibility. virtio-vhost-user makes me = feel that what can > > > > > > > be shared is the function implementation of map. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But in the vm to provide the interface to the upper layer, I = think this is the > > > > > > > work of ism. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But one of the reasons why I didn't use virtio-vhost-user dir= ectly is that in > > > > > > > another vm, the guest can operate the vvu device, which we ho= pe that both sides > > > > > > > are equal to the ism device. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So I want to agree on a question first: who will provide the = upper layer with > > > > > > > the ability to share the memory area? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Our answer is a new ism device. How does this device achieve = memory sharing, I > > > > > > > think is the second question. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From this design purpose, I think the two are different. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, you might want to extend it, it does have some= similarities and uses > > > > > > > > > a lot of similar techniques. > > > > > > > > I don't have any preference so far. If you think your idea = makes more > > > > > > > > sense, then try your best to justify it in the list. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So we can really discuss in this direction, whether > > > > > > > > > the vvu device can be extended to achieve the purpose of = ism, or whether the > > > > > > > > > design goals can be agreed. > > > > > > > > I've added Stefan in the loop, let's hear from him. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or, in the direction of memory sharing in the backend, ca= n ism and vvu be merged? > > > > > > > > > Should device/driver APIs remain independent? > > > > > > > > Btw, you mentioned that one possible user of ism is the smc= , but I > > > > > > > > don't see how it connects to that with your prototype drive= r. > > > > > > > Yes, we originally had plans, but the virtio spec was conside= red for submission, > > > > > > > so this was not included. Maybe, we should have included this= part @Tony > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A brief introduction is that SMC currently has a correspondin= g > > > > > > > s390/net/ism_drv.c and we will replace this in the virtualiza= tion scenario. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok, I see. So I think the goal is to implement something in virti= o that is > > > > > functional equivalent to IBM ISM device. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, IBM ISM devices do something similar and it inspired this. > > > > > > Ok, it would be better to mention this in the cover letter of the nex= t > > > version. This can ease the reviewers (IBM has some good docs of those > > > from the website). > > > > > > > Yes, we will do it. >=20 > Btw, I wonder about the plan to support live migration. E.g do we need > to hot unplug the ism device before the migration then we can fallback > to TCP/IP ? >=20 >From the point view of SMC, SMC-R maintains multiple link (RDMA QP), it can live migrate existed connections to new link. Currently, yes, for SMC-D. Cheers, Tony Lu > Thanks >=20 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > SMC is a network protocol which is modeled by shared memory rat= her than > > > > > > packet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > After reading more SMC from IBM website, I think you meant SMC-D = here. And I > > > > > wonder in order to have a complete SMC solution we still need vir= tio-ROCE > > > > > for inter host communcation? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mostly yes. > > > > > > > > SMC-D is the part of whole SMC solution. SMC supports multiple > > > > underlying device, -D means ISM device, -R means RDMA device. The k= ey > > > > data model is shared memory, SMC uses RDMA (-R) or ISM(-D) to *shar= e* > > > > memory between peers, and it will choose the suitable device on dem= and > > > > during handshaking. If there was no suitable device, it would fall = back > > > > to TCP. So virtio-ROCE is not required. > > > > > > So the commniting peers on the same host we need SMC-D, in the future > > > we need to use RDMA to offload the communication among the peers of > > > different hosts. Then we can get fully transparent offload no matter > > > the peer is local or not. > > > > > > > Yes, this is what we want to do. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually the basic required interfaces of SMC device are: > > > > > > > > > > > > - alloc / free memory region, each connection peer has two m= emory > > > > > > regions dynamically for sending and receiving ring buffer. > > > > > > - attach / detach memory region, remote attaches local-alloc= ated > > > > > > sending region as receiving region, vice versa. > > > > > > - notify, tell peer to read data and update cursor. > > > > > > > > > > > > Then the device can be registered as SMC ISM device. Of course,= SMC > > > > > > also requires some modification to adapt it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looking at s390 ism driver it requires other stuffs like vlan add= /remove or > > > > > gid query, do we need them as well? > > > > > > > > vlan is not required in this use case. ISM uses gid to identified e= ach > > > > others, maybe we could implement it in virtio ways. > > > > > > I'd suggest adding the codes to register the driver to SMC/ISM in the > > > next version (instead of a simple procfs hooking). Then people can > > > easily play or review. > > > > > > > Ok, I will add the codes in the next version. > > > > Cheers, > > Tony Lu > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > To support virtio-ism smoothly, the interfaces of ISM driver still = need > > > > to be adjusted. I will put it on the table with IBM people. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Tony Lu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Tony Lu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How to share the backend with other deivce is another= problem. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, anything that is used for your virito-ism prototyp= e can be used > > > > > > > > > > for other devices. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Our goal is to dynamically obtain a piece of memory t= o share with other vms. > > > > > > > > > > So at this level, I don't see the exact difference comp= ared to > > > > > > > > > > virtio-vhost-user. Let's just focus on the API that car= ries on the > > > > > > > > > > semantic: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - map/unmap > > > > > > > > > > - permission update > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only missing piece is the per region notification. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a connection, this memory will be used repeatedly.= As far as SMC is concerned, > > > > > > > > > > > it will use it as a ring. Of course, we also need a n= otify mechanism. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's what we're aiming for, so we should first disc= uss whether this > > > > > > > > > > > requirement is reasonable. > > > > > > > > > > So unless somebody said "no", it is fine until now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it's a feature currently not supported by > > > > > > > > > > > other devices specified by the current virtio spce. > > > > > > > > > > Probably, but we've already had rfcs for roce and vhost= -user. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org