|
| From: | Jason Wang |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC 05/10] vhost: Add vhost_dev_from_virtio |
| Date: | Wed, 10 Feb 2021 13:54:48 +0800 |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 |
On 2021/2/9 下午11:35, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote:
On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 4:52 AM Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:On 2021/2/4 下午5:25, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote:On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 4:14 AM Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:On 2021/2/2 下午6:17, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote:On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 4:31 AM Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:On 2021/2/1 下午4:28, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote:On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 7:13 AM Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:On 2021/1/30 上午4:54, Eugenio Pérez wrote:Signed-off-by: Eugenio Pérez <eperezma@redhat.com> --- include/hw/virtio/vhost.h | 1 + hw/virtio/vhost.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+) diff --git a/include/hw/virtio/vhost.h b/include/hw/virtio/vhost.h index 4a8bc75415..fca076e3f0 100644 --- a/include/hw/virtio/vhost.h +++ b/include/hw/virtio/vhost.h @@ -123,6 +123,7 @@ uint64_t vhost_get_features(struct vhost_dev *hdev, const int *feature_bits, void vhost_ack_features(struct vhost_dev *hdev, const int *feature_bits, uint64_t features); bool vhost_has_free_slot(void); +struct vhost_dev *vhost_dev_from_virtio(const VirtIODevice *vdev); int vhost_net_set_backend(struct vhost_dev *hdev, struct vhost_vring_file *file); diff --git a/hw/virtio/vhost.c b/hw/virtio/vhost.c index 28c7d78172..8683d507f5 100644 --- a/hw/virtio/vhost.c +++ b/hw/virtio/vhost.c @@ -61,6 +61,23 @@ bool vhost_has_free_slot(void) return slots_limit > used_memslots; } +/* + * Get the vhost device associated to a VirtIO device. + */ +struct vhost_dev *vhost_dev_from_virtio(const VirtIODevice *vdev) +{ + struct vhost_dev *hdev; + + QLIST_FOREACH(hdev, &vhost_devices, entry) { + if (hdev->vdev == vdev) { + return hdev; + } + } + + assert(hdev); + return NULL; +}I'm not sure this can work in the case of multiqueue. E.g vhost-net multiqueue is a N:1 mapping between vhost devics and virtio devices. ThanksRight. We could add an "vdev vq index" parameter to the function in this case, but I guess the most reliable way to do this is to add a vhost_opaque value to VirtQueue, as Stefan proposed in previous RFC.So the question still, it looks like it's easier to hide the shadow virtqueue stuffs at vhost layer instead of expose them to virtio layer: 1) vhost protocol is stable ABI 2) no need to deal with virtio stuffs which is more complex than vhost Or are there any advantages if we do it at virtio layer?As far as I can tell, we will need the virtio layer the moment we start copying/translating buffers. In this series, the virtio dependency can be reduced if qemu does not check the used ring _F_NO_NOTIFY flag before writing to irqfd. It would enable packed queues and IOMMU immediately, and I think the cost should not be so high. In the previous RFC this check was deleted later anyway, so I think it was a bad idea to include it from the start.I am not sure I understand here. For vhost, we can still do anything we want, e.g accessing guest memory etc. Any blocker that prevent us from copying/translating buffers? (Note that qemu will propagate memory mappings to vhost).There is nothing that forbids us to access directly, but if we don't reuse the virtio layer functionality we would have to duplicate every access function. "Need" was a too strong word maybe :). In other words: for the shadow vq vring exposed for the device, qemu treats it as a driver, and this functionality needs to be added to qemu. But for accessing the guest's one do not reuse virtio.c would be a bad idea in my opinion.The problem is, virtio.c is not a library and it has a lot of dependency with other qemu modules basically makes it impossible to be reused at vhost level.While virtio.c as a whole has dependencies, I think that the functions needed in the original RFC do not have these dependencies. However I see how to split vring dataplane from virtio device management can benefit.
If you can split them out, that would be fine.
We can solve this by: 1) split the core functions out as a library or 2) switch to use contrib/lib-vhostuser but needs to decouple UNIX socket transport None of the above looks trivial and they are only device codes. For shadow virtqueue, we need driver codes as well where no code can be reused. As we discussed, we probably need IOVA allocated when forwarding descriptors between the two virtqueues. So my feeling is we can have our own codes to start then we can consider whether we can reuse some from the existing virtio.c or lib-vhostuser.As I see it, if we develop our own code a lot of it will be copied from current virtio.c, which itself duplicates a lot of contrib/ lib functionality. Maybe it's better to combine your proposals and decouple the vring functions, the vhost transport, and the qemu virtio device management, so other projects can reuse them directly?
I think this can work.
I still think this can be left for a later series with buffer forwarding on top of this one, do you think they can/should be merged independently?
Since you post a new series, let's see. Thanks
Thanks!ThanksThanksThanksI need to take this into account in qmp_x_vhost_enable_shadow_vq too.+ static void vhost_dev_sync_region(struct vhost_dev *dev, MemoryRegionSection *section, uint64_t mfirst, uint64_t mlast,
| [Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |