[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] rfc: vhost user enhancements for vm2vm communication

From: Nakajima, Jun
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] rfc: vhost user enhancements for vm2vm communication
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 11:35:55 -0700

On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin <address@hidden> wrote:
> Hello!
> During the KVM forum, we discussed supporting virtio on top
> of ivshmem. I have considered it, and came up with an alternative
> that has several advantages over that - please see below.
> Comments welcome.

Hi Michael,

I like this, and it should be able to achieve what I presented at KVM
Forum (vhost-user-shmem).
Comments below.

> -----
> Existing solutions to userspace switching between VMs on the
> same host are vhost-user and ivshmem.
> vhost-user works by mapping memory of all VMs being bridged into the
> switch memory space.
> By comparison, ivshmem works by exposing a shared region of memory to all VMs.
> VMs are required to use this region to store packets. The switch only
> needs access to this region.
> Another difference between vhost-user and ivshmem surfaces when polling
> is used. With vhost-user, the switch is required to handle
> data movement between VMs, if using polling, this means that 1 host CPU
> needs to be sacrificed for this task.
> This is easiest to understand when one of the VMs is
> used with VF pass-through. This can be schematically shown below:
> +-- VM1 --------------+            +---VM2-----------+
> | virtio-pci          +-vhost-user-+ virtio-pci -- VF | -- VFIO -- IOMMU -- 
> +---------------------+            +-----------------+
> With ivshmem in theory communication can happen directly, with two VMs
> polling the shared memory region.
> I won't spend time listing advantages of vhost-user over ivshmem.
> Instead, having identified two advantages of ivshmem over vhost-user,
> below is a proposal to extend vhost-user to gain the advantages
> of ivshmem.
> 1: virtio in guest can be extended to allow support
> for IOMMUs. This provides guest with full flexibility
> about memory which is readable or write able by each device.

I assume that you meant VFIO only for virtio by "use of VFIO".  To get
VFIO working for general direct-I/O (including VFs) in guests, as you
know, we need to virtualize IOMMU (e.g. VT-d) and the interrupt
remapping table on x86 (i.e. nested VT-d).

> By setting up a virtio device for each other VM we need to
> communicate to, guest gets full control of its security, from
> mapping all memory (like with current vhost-user) to only
> mapping buffers used for networking (like ivshmem) to
> transient mappings for the duration of data transfer only.

And I think that we can use VMFUNC to have such transient mappings.

> This also allows use of VFIO within guests, for improved
> security.
> vhost user would need to be extended to send the
> mappings programmed by guest IOMMU.

Right. We need to think about cases where other VMs (VM3, etc.) join
the group or some existing VM leaves.
PCI hot-plug should work there (as you point out at "Advantages over
ivshmem" below).

> 2. qemu can be extended to serve as a vhost-user client:
> remote VM mappings over the vhost-user protocol, and
> map them into another VM's memory.
> This mapping can take, for example, the form of
> a BAR of a pci device, which I'll call here vhost-pci -
> with bus address allowed
> by VM1's IOMMU mappings being translated into
> offsets within this BAR within VM2's physical
> memory space.

I think it's sensible.

> Since the translation can be a simple one, VM2
> can perform it within its vhost-pci device driver.
> While this setup would be the most useful with polling,
> VM1's ioeventfd can also be mapped to
> another VM2's irqfd, and vice versa, such that VMs
> can trigger interrupts to each other without need
> for a helper thread on the host.
> The resulting channel might look something like the following:
> +-- VM1 --------------+  +---VM2-----------+
> | virtio-pci -- iommu +--+ vhost-pci -- VF | -- VFIO -- IOMMU -- NIC
> +---------------------+  +-----------------+
> comparing the two diagrams, a vhost-user thread on the host is
> no longer required, reducing the host CPU utilization when
> polling is active.  At the same time, VM2 can not access all of VM1's
> memory - it is limited by the iommu configuration setup by VM1.
> Advantages over ivshmem:
> - more flexibility, endpoint VMs do not have to place data at any
>   specific locations to use the device, in practice this likely
>   means less data copies.
> - better standardization/code reuse
>   virtio changes within guests would be fairly easy to implement
>   and would also benefit other backends, besides vhost-user
>   standard hotplug interfaces can be used to add and remove these
>   channels as VMs are added or removed.
> - migration support
>   It's easy to implement since ownership of memory is well defined.
>   For example, during migration VM2 can notify hypervisor of VM1
>   by updating dirty bitmap each time is writes into VM1 memory.

Also, the ivshmem functionality could be implemented by this proposal:
- vswitch (or some VM) allocates memory regions in its address space, and
- it sets up that IOMMU mappings on the VMs be translated into the regions

> Thanks,
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Virtualization mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

Intel Open Source Technology Center

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]