[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] virtio: increase VIRTQUEUE_MAX_SIZE to 32k
|
From: |
Christian Schoenebeck |
|
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] virtio: increase VIRTQUEUE_MAX_SIZE to 32k |
|
Date: |
Tue, 09 Nov 2021 14:09:59 +0100 |
On Dienstag, 9. November 2021 11:56:35 CET Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 04, 2021 at 03:41:23PM +0100, Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
> > On Mittwoch, 3. November 2021 12:33:33 CET Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 09:29:26PM +0100, Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
> > > > On Donnerstag, 28. Oktober 2021 11:00:48 CET Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 05:03:25PM +0200, Christian Schoenebeck
wrote:
> > > > > > On Montag, 25. Oktober 2021 12:30:41 CEST Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 05:39:28PM +0200, Christian Schoenebeck
wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Freitag, 8. Oktober 2021 18:08:48 CEST Christian
Schoenebeck wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Freitag, 8. Oktober 2021 16:24:42 CEST Christian
Schoenebeck wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Freitag, 8. Oktober 2021 09:25:33 CEST Greg Kurz wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 7 Oct 2021 16:42:49 +0100
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 02:51:55PM +0200, Christian
Schoenebeck wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Donnerstag, 7. Oktober 2021 07:23:59 CEST Stefan
Hajnoczi wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 04, 2021 at 09:38:00PM +0200,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Christian
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Schoenebeck
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At the moment the maximum transfer size with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > virtio
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > limited
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4M
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (1024 * PAGE_SIZE). This series raises this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > limit to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > its
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > maximum
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > theoretical possible transfer size of 128M (32k
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pages)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > according
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > virtio specs:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.oasis-open.org/virtio/virtio/v1.1/c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > s01/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > virt
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > io-v
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1.1-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 01
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .html#
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > x1-240006
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Christian,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I took a quick look at the code:
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Stefan for sharing virtio expertise and helping
> > > > > > > > > > > Christian
> > > > > > > > > > > !
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - The Linux 9p driver restricts descriptor chains
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 128
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > elements
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (net/9p/trans_virtio.c:VIRTQUEUE_NUM)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, that's the limitation that I am about to remove
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (WIP);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > current
> > > > > > > > > > > > > kernel
> > > > > > > > > > > > > patches:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/cover.1632327421.git.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > linu
> > > > > > > > > > > > > x_os
> > > > > > > > > > > > > s@cr
> > > > > > > > > > > > > udeb
> > > > > > > > > > > > > yt
> > > > > > > > > > > > > e.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > com/>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I haven't read the patches yet but I'm concerned that
> > > > > > > > > > > > today
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > driver
> > > > > > > > > > > > is pretty well-behaved and this new patch series
> > > > > > > > > > > > introduces a
> > > > > > > > > > > > spec
> > > > > > > > > > > > violation. Not fixing existing spec violations is
> > > > > > > > > > > > okay,
> > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > adding
> > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > ones is a red flag. I think we need to figure out a
> > > > > > > > > > > > clean
> > > > > > > > > > > > solution.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Nobody has reviewed the kernel patches yet. My main
> > > > > > > > > > concern
> > > > > > > > > > therefore
> > > > > > > > > > actually is that the kernel patches are already too
> > > > > > > > > > complex,
> > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > current situation is that only Dominique is handling 9p
> > > > > > > > > > patches on
> > > > > > > > > > kernel
> > > > > > > > > > side, and he barely has time for 9p anymore.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Another reason for me to catch up on reading current
> > > > > > > > > > kernel
> > > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > stepping in as reviewer of 9p on kernel side ASAP,
> > > > > > > > > > independent
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > issue.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > As for current kernel patches' complexity: I can certainly
> > > > > > > > > > drop
> > > > > > > > > > patch
> > > > > > > > > > 7
> > > > > > > > > > entirely as it is probably just overkill. Patch 4 is then
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > biggest
> > > > > > > > > > chunk, I have to see if I can simplify it, and whether it
> > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > sense to squash with patch 3.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - The QEMU 9pfs code passes iovecs directly to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > preadv(2)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with EINVAL when called with more than IOV_MAX
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > iovecs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (hw/9pfs/9p.c:v9fs_read())
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hmm, which makes me wonder why I never encountered
> > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > error
> > > > > > > > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > > > > > > testing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Most people will use the 9p qemu 'local' fs driver
> > > > > > > > > > > > > backend
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > practice,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that v9fs_read() call would translate for most
> > > > > > > > > > > > > people to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation on QEMU side (hw/9p/9p-local.c):
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > static ssize_t local_preadv(FsContext *ctx,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > V9fsFidOpenState
> > > > > > > > > > > > > *fs,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > const struct iovec *iov,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > int iovcnt, off_t
> > > > > > > > > > > > > offset)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_PREADV
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > return preadv(fs->fd, iov, iovcnt, offset);
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > #else
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > int err = lseek(fs->fd, offset, SEEK_SET);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > if (err == -1) {
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > return err;
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > } else {
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > return readv(fs->fd, iov, iovcnt);
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > #endif
> > > > > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unless I misunderstood the code, neither side can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > take
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > advantage
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > new 32k descriptor chain limit?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Stefan
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I need to check that when I have some more time. One
> > > > > > > > > > > > > possible
> > > > > > > > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > might be that preadv() already has this wrapped into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > loop
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > its
> > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation to circumvent a limit like IOV_MAX.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > It
> > > > > > > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > works, but not portable" issue, but not sure.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > There are still a bunch of other issues I have to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > resolve.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > look
> > > > > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > net/9p/client.c on kernel side, you'll notice that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > basically
> > > > > > > > > > > > > does
> > > > > > > > > > > > > this ATM> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > kmalloc(msize);
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Note that this is done twice : once for the T message
> > > > > > > > > > > (client
> > > > > > > > > > > request)
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > once for the R message (server answer). The 9p driver
> > > > > > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > > > > adjust
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > size
> > > > > > > > > > > of the T message to what's really needed instead of
> > > > > > > > > > > allocating
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > full
> > > > > > > > > > > msize. R message size is not known though.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Would it make sense adding a second virtio ring, dedicated
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > server
> > > > > > > > > > responses to solve this? IIRC 9p server already calculates
> > > > > > > > > > appropriate
> > > > > > > > > > exact sizes for each response type. So server could just
> > > > > > > > > > push
> > > > > > > > > > space
> > > > > > > > > > that's
> > > > > > > > > > really needed for its responses.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for every 9p request. So not only does it allocate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > much
> > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > memory
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > every request than actually required (i.e. say 9pfs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > mounted
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > msize=8M, then a 9p request that actually would just
> > > > > > > > > > > > > need 1k
> > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > nevertheless allocate 8M), but also it allocates >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > PAGE_SIZE,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > obviously may fail at any time.>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The PAGE_SIZE limitation sounds like a kmalloc() vs
> > > > > > > > > > > > vmalloc()
> > > > > > > > > > > > situation.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hu, I didn't even consider vmalloc(). I just tried the
> > > > > > > > > > kvmalloc()
> > > > > > > > > > wrapper
> > > > > > > > > > as a quick & dirty test, but it crashed in the same way as
> > > > > > > > > > kmalloc()
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > large msize values immediately on mounting:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/net/9p/client.c b/net/9p/client.c
> > > > > > > > > > index a75034fa249b..cfe300a4b6ca 100644
> > > > > > > > > > --- a/net/9p/client.c
> > > > > > > > > > +++ b/net/9p/client.c
> > > > > > > > > > @@ -227,15 +227,18 @@ static int parse_opts(char *opts,
> > > > > > > > > > struct
> > > > > > > > > > p9_client
> > > > > > > > > > *clnt)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > static int p9_fcall_init(struct p9_client *c, struct
> > > > > > > > > > p9_fcall
> > > > > > > > > > *fc,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > int alloc_msize)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > - if (likely(c->fcall_cache) && alloc_msize ==
> > > > > > > > > > c->msize)
> > > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > > + //if (likely(c->fcall_cache) && alloc_msize ==
> > > > > > > > > > c->msize) {
> > > > > > > > > > + if (false) {
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > fc->sdata =
> > > > > > > > > > kmem_cache_alloc(c->fcall_cache,
> > > > > > > > > > GFP_NOFS);
> > > > > > > > > > fc->cache = c->fcall_cache;
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > } else {
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > - fc->sdata = kmalloc(alloc_msize,
> > > > > > > > > > GFP_NOFS);
> > > > > > > > > > + fc->sdata = kvmalloc(alloc_msize,
> > > > > > > > > > GFP_NOFS);
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ok, GFP_NOFS -> GFP_KERNEL did the trick.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Now I get:
> > > > > > > > > virtio: bogus descriptor or out of resources
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So, still some work ahead on both ends.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Few hacks later (only changes on 9p client side) I got this
> > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > stable
> > > > > > > > now. The reason for the virtio error above was that kvmalloc()
> > > > > > > > returns
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > non-logical kernel address for any kvmalloc(>4M), i.e. an
> > > > > > > > address
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > inaccessible from host side, hence that "bogus descriptor"
> > > > > > > > message
> > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > QEMU.
> > > > > > > > So I had to split those linear 9p client buffers into sparse
> > > > > > > > ones
> > > > > > > > (set
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > individual pages).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I tested this for some days with various virtio transmission
> > > > > > > > sizes
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > works as expected up to 128 MB (more precisely: 128 MB read
> > > > > > > > space
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > 128 MB
> > > > > > > > write space per virtio round trip message).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I did not encounter a show stopper for large virtio
> > > > > > > > transmission
> > > > > > > > sizes
> > > > > > > > (4 MB ... 128 MB) on virtio level, neither as a result of
> > > > > > > > testing,
> > > > > > > > nor
> > > > > > > > after reviewing the existing code.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > About IOV_MAX: that's apparently not an issue on virtio level.
> > > > > > > > Most of
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > iovec code, both on Linux kernel side and on QEMU side do not
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > limitation. It is apparently however indeed a limitation for
> > > > > > > > userland
> > > > > > > > apps
> > > > > > > > calling the Linux kernel's syscalls yet.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Stefan, as it stands now, I am even more convinced that the
> > > > > > > > upper
> > > > > > > > virtio
> > > > > > > > transmission size limit should not be squeezed into the queue
> > > > > > > > size
> > > > > > > > argument of virtio_add_queue(). Not because of the previous
> > > > > > > > argument
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > it would waste space (~1MB), but rather because they are two
> > > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > things. To outline this, just a quick recap of what happens
> > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > a bulk message is pushed over the virtio wire (assuming virtio
> > > > > > > > "split"
> > > > > > > > layout here):
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ---------- [recap-start] ----------
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For each bulk message sent guest <-> host, exactly *one* of
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > pre-allocated descriptors is taken and placed (subsequently)
> > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > *one* position of the two available/used ring buffers. The
> > > > > > > > actual
> > > > > > > > descriptor table though, containing all the DMA addresses of
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > message
> > > > > > > > bulk data, is allocated just in time for each round trip
> > > > > > > > message.
> > > > > > > > Say,
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > is the first message sent, it yields in the following
> > > > > > > > structure:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ring Buffer Descriptor Table Bulk Data Pages
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > +-+ +-+ +-----------------+
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > |D|------------->|d|---------->| Bulk data block |
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > +-+ |d|--------+ +-----------------+
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > | | |d|------+ |
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > +-+ . | | +-----------------+
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > | | . | +->| Bulk data block |
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > . . | +-----------------+
> > > > > > > > . |d|-+ |
> > > > > > > > . +-+ | | +-----------------+
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > | | | +--->| Bulk data block |
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > +-+ | +-----------------+
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > | | | .
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > +-+ | .
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > | .
> > > > > > > > |
> > > > > > > > | +-----------------+
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > +-------->| Bulk data block |
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > +-----------------+
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Legend:
> > > > > > > > D: pre-allocated descriptor
> > > > > > > > d: just in time allocated descriptor
> > > > > > > > -->: memory pointer (DMA)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The bulk data blocks are allocated by the respective device
> > > > > > > > driver
> > > > > > > > above
> > > > > > > > virtio subsystem level (guest side).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There are exactly as many descriptors pre-allocated (D) as the
> > > > > > > > size of
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > ring buffer.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A "descriptor" is more or less just a chainable DMA memory
> > > > > > > > pointer;
> > > > > > > > defined
> > > > > > > > as:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > /* Virtio ring descriptors: 16 bytes. These can chain
> > > > > > > > together
> > > > > > > > via
> > > > > > > > "next". */ struct vring_desc {
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > /* Address (guest-physical). */
> > > > > > > > __virtio64 addr;
> > > > > > > > /* Length. */
> > > > > > > > __virtio32 len;
> > > > > > > > /* The flags as indicated above. */
> > > > > > > > __virtio16 flags;
> > > > > > > > /* We chain unused descriptors via this, too */
> > > > > > > > __virtio16 next;
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > };
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There are 2 ring buffers; the "available" ring buffer is for
> > > > > > > > sending a
> > > > > > > > message guest->host (which will transmit DMA addresses of
> > > > > > > > guest
> > > > > > > > allocated
> > > > > > > > bulk data blocks that are used for data sent to device, and
> > > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > guest allocated bulk data blocks that will be used by host
> > > > > > > > side to
> > > > > > > > place
> > > > > > > > its response bulk data), and the "used" ring buffer is for
> > > > > > > > sending
> > > > > > > > host->guest to let guest know about host's response and that
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > now
> > > > > > > > safely consume and then deallocate the bulk data blocks
> > > > > > > > subsequently.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ---------- [recap-end] ----------
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So the "queue size" actually defines the ringbuffer size. It
> > > > > > > > does
> > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > define the maximum amount of descriptors. The "queue size"
> > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > defines
> > > > > > > > how many pending messages can be pushed into either one
> > > > > > > > ringbuffer
> > > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > the other side would need to wait until the counter side would
> > > > > > > > step up
> > > > > > > > (i.e. ring buffer full).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The maximum amount of descriptors (what VIRTQUEUE_MAX_SIZE
> > > > > > > > actually
> > > > > > > > is)
> > > > > > > > OTOH defines the max. bulk data size that could be transmitted
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > virtio round trip message.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And in fact, 9p currently handles the virtio "queue size" as
> > > > > > > > directly
> > > > > > > > associative with its maximum amount of active 9p requests the
> > > > > > > > server
> > > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > handle simultaniously:
> > > > > > > > hw/9pfs/9p.h:#define MAX_REQ 128
> > > > > > > > hw/9pfs/9p.h: V9fsPDU pdus[MAX_REQ];
> > > > > > > > hw/9pfs/virtio-9p-device.c: v->vq =
> > > > > > > > virtio_add_queue(vdev,
> > > > > > > > MAX_REQ,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > handle_9p_output);
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So if I would change it like this, just for the purpose to
> > > > > > > > increase
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > max. virtio transmission size:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- a/hw/9pfs/virtio-9p-device.c
> > > > > > > > +++ b/hw/9pfs/virtio-9p-device.c
> > > > > > > > @@ -218,7 +218,7 @@ static void
> > > > > > > > virtio_9p_device_realize(DeviceState
> > > > > > > > *dev,
> > > > > > > > Error **errp)>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > v->config_size = sizeof(struct virtio_9p_config) +
> > > > > > > > strlen(s->fsconf.tag);
> > > > > > > > virtio_init(vdev, "virtio-9p", VIRTIO_ID_9P,
> > > > > > > > v->config_size,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > VIRTQUEUE_MAX_SIZE);
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > - v->vq = virtio_add_queue(vdev, MAX_REQ,
> > > > > > > > handle_9p_output);
> > > > > > > > + v->vq = virtio_add_queue(vdev, 32*1024,
> > > > > > > > handle_9p_output);
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Then it would require additional synchronization code on both
> > > > > > > > ends
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > therefore unnecessary complexity, because it would now be
> > > > > > > > possible
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > more requests are pushed into the ringbuffer than server could
> > > > > > > > handle.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There is one potential issue though that probably did justify
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > "don't
> > > > > > > > exceed the queue size" rule:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ATM the descriptor table is allocated (just in time) as *one*
> > > > > > > > continuous
> > > > > > > > buffer via kmalloc_array():
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/2f111a6fd5b5297b4e92f53
> > > > > > > > 798c
> > > > > > > > a086
> > > > > > > > f7c7
> > > > > > > > d33a4/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c#L440
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So assuming transmission size of 2 * 128 MB that
> > > > > > > > kmalloc_array()
> > > > > > > > call
> > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > yield in kmalloc(1M) and the latter might fail if guest had
> > > > > > > > highly
> > > > > > > > fragmented physical memory. For such kind of error case there
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > currently a fallback path in virtqueue_add_split() that would
> > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > the required amount of pre-allocated descriptors instead:
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/2f111a6fd5b5297b4e92f53
> > > > > > > > 798c
> > > > > > > > a086
> > > > > > > > f7c7
> > > > > > > > d33a4/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c#L525
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That fallback recovery path would no longer be viable if the
> > > > > > > > queue
> > > > > > > > size
> > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > exceeded. There would be alternatives though, e.g. by allowing
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > chain
> > > > > > > > indirect descriptor tables (currently prohibited by the virtio
> > > > > > > > specs).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Making the maximum number of descriptors independent of the
> > > > > > > queue
> > > > > > > size
> > > > > > > requires a change to the VIRTIO spec since the two values are
> > > > > > > currently
> > > > > > > explicitly tied together by the spec.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, that's what the virtio specs say. But they don't say why, nor
> > > > > > did
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > hear a reason in this dicussion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's why I invested time reviewing current virtio implementation
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > specs, as well as actually testing exceeding that limit. And as I
> > > > > > outlined in detail in my previous email, I only found one
> > > > > > theoretical
> > > > > > issue that could be addressed though.
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree that there is a limitation in the VIRTIO spec, but violating
> > > > > the
> > > > > spec isn't an acceptable solution:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. QEMU and Linux aren't the only components that implement VIRTIO.
> > > > > You
> > > > >
> > > > > cannot make assumptions about their implementations because it
> > > > > may
> > > > > break spec-compliant implementations that you haven't looked at.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your patches weren't able to increase Queue Size because some
> > > > > device
> > > > > implementations break when descriptor chains are too long. This
> > > > > shows
> > > > > there is a practical issue even in QEMU.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. The specific spec violation that we discussed creates the problem
> > > > >
> > > > > that drivers can no longer determine the maximum description
> > > > > chain
> > > > > length. This in turn will lead to more implementation-specific
> > > > > assumptions being baked into drivers and cause problems with
> > > > > interoperability and future changes.
> > > > >
> > > > > The spec needs to be extended instead. I included an idea for how to
> > > > > do
> > > > > that below.
> > > >
> > > > Sure, I just wanted to see if there was a non-neglectable "hard" show
> > > > stopper per se that I probably haven't seen yet. I have not questioned
> > > > aiming a clean solution.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the clarification!
> > > >
> > > > > > > Before doing that, are there benchmark results showing that 1 MB
> > > > > > > vs
> > > > > > > 128
> > > > > > > MB produces a performance improvement? I'm asking because if
> > > > > > > performance
> > > > > > > with 1 MB is good then you can probably do that without having
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > VIRTIO and also because it's counter-intuitive that 9p needs 128
> > > > > > > MB
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > good performance when it's ultimately implemented on top of disk
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > network I/O that have lower size limits.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > First some numbers, linear reading a 12 GB file:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > msize average notes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 8 kB 52.0 MB/s default msize of Linux kernel <v5.15
> > > > > > 128 kB 624.8 MB/s default msize of Linux kernel >=v5.15
> > > > > > 512 kB 1961 MB/s current max. msize with any Linux kernel
> > > > > > <=v5.15
> > > > > > 1 MB 2551 MB/s this msize would already violate virtio
> > > > > > specs
> > > > > > 2 MB 2521 MB/s this msize would already violate virtio
> > > > > > specs
> > > > > > 4 MB 2628 MB/s planned max. msize of my current kernel
> > > > > > patches
> > > > > > [1]
> > > > >
> > > > > How many descriptors are used? 4 MB can be covered by a single
> > > > > descriptor if the data is physically contiguous in memory, so this
> > > > > data
> > > > > doesn't demonstrate a need for more descriptors.
> > > >
> > > > No, in the last couple years there was apparently no kernel version
> > > > that
> > > > used just one descriptor, nor did my benchmarked version. Even though
> > > > the
> > > > Linux 9p client uses (yet) simple linear buffers (contiguous physical
> > > > memory) on 9p client level, these are however split into PAGE_SIZE
> > > > chunks
> > > > by function pack_sg_list() [1] before being fed to virtio level:
> > > >
> > > > static unsigned int rest_of_page(void *data)
> > > > {
> > > >
> > > > return PAGE_SIZE - offset_in_page(data);
> > > >
> > > > }
> > > > ...
> > > > static int pack_sg_list(struct scatterlist *sg, int start,
> > > >
> > > > int limit, char *data, int count)
> > > >
> > > > {
> > > >
> > > > int s;
> > > > int index = start;
> > > >
> > > > while (count) {
> > > >
> > > > s = rest_of_page(data);
> > > > ...
> > > > sg_set_buf(&sg[index++], data, s);
> > > > count -= s;
> > > > data += s;
> > > >
> > > > }
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > > https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/19901165d90fdca1e57c9baa0d5b4c6
> > > > 3d1
> > > > 5c476a/net/9p/trans_virtio.c#L171
> > > >
> > > > So when sending 4MB over virtio wire, it would yield in 1k descriptors
> > > > ATM.
> > > >
> > > > I have wondered about this before, but did not question it, because
> > > > due to
> > > > the cross-platform nature I couldn't say for certain whether that's
> > > > probably needed somewhere. I mean for the case virtio-PCI I know for
> > > > sure
> > > > that one descriptor (i.e. >PAGE_SIZE) would be fine, but I don't know
> > > > if
> > > > that applies to all buses and architectures.
> > >
> > > VIRTIO does not limit descriptor the descriptor len field to PAGE_SIZE,
> > > so I don't think there is a limit at the VIRTIO level.
> >
> > So you are viewing this purely from virtio specs PoV: in the sense, if it
> > is not prohibited by the virtio specs, then it should work. Maybe.
>
> Limitations must be specified either in the 9P protocol or the VIRTIO
> specification. Drivers and devices will not be able to operate correctly
> if there are limitations that aren't covered by the specs.
>
> Do you have something in mind that isn't covered by the specs?
Not sure whether that's something that should be specified by the virtio
specs, probably not. I simply do not know if there was any bus or architecture
that would have a limitation for max. size for a memory block passed per one
DMA address.
> > > If this function coalesces adjacent pages then the descriptor chain
> > > length issues could be reduced.
> > >
> > > > > > But again, this is not just about performance. My conclusion as
> > > > > > described
> > > > > > in my previous email is that virtio currently squeezes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "max. simultanious amount of bulk messages"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > vs.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "max. bulk data transmission size per bulk messaage"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > into the same configuration parameter, which is IMO inappropriate
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > hence
> > > > > > splitting them into 2 separate parameters when creating a queue
> > > > > > makes
> > > > > > sense, independent of the performance benchmarks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/cover.1632327421.git.linux_oss@crud
> > > > > > ebyt
> > > > > > e.c
> > > > > > om/
> > > > >
> > > > > Some devices effectively already have this because the device
> > > > > advertises
> > > > > a maximum number of descriptors via device-specific mechanisms like
> > > > > the
> > > > > struct virtio_blk_config seg_max field. But today these fields can
> > > > > only
> > > > > reduce the maximum descriptor chain length because the spec still
> > > > > limits
> > > > > the length to Queue Size.
> > > > >
> > > > > We can build on this approach to raise the length above Queue Size.
> > > > > This
> > > > > approach has the advantage that the maximum number of segments isn't
> > > > > per
> > > > > device or per virtqueue, it's fine-grained. If the device supports
> > > > > two
> > > > > requests types then different max descriptor chain limits could be
> > > > > given
> > > > > for them by introducing two separate configuration space fields.
> > > > >
> > > > > Here are the corresponding spec changes:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. A new feature bit called VIRTIO_RING_F_LARGE_INDIRECT_DESC is
> > > > > added
> > > > >
> > > > > to indicate that indirect descriptor table size and maximum
> > > > > descriptor chain length are not limited by Queue Size value.
> > > > > (Maybe
> > > > > there still needs to be a limit like 2^15?)
> > > >
> > > > Sounds good to me!
> > > >
> > > > AFAIK it is effectively limited to 2^16 because of vring_desc->next:
> > > >
> > > > /* Virtio ring descriptors: 16 bytes. These can chain together via
> > > > "next". */ struct vring_desc {
> > > >
> > > > /* Address (guest-physical). */
> > > > __virtio64 addr;
> > > > /* Length. */
> > > > __virtio32 len;
> > > > /* The flags as indicated above. */
> > > > __virtio16 flags;
> > > > /* We chain unused descriptors via this, too */
> > > > __virtio16 next;
> > > >
> > > > };
> > >
> > > Yes, Split Virtqueues have a fundamental limit on indirect table size
> > > due to the "next" field. Packed Virtqueue descriptors don't have a
> > > "next" field so descriptor chains could be longer in theory (currently
> > > forbidden by the spec).
> > >
> > > > > One thing that's messy is that we've been discussing the maximum
> > > > > descriptor chain length but 9p has the "msize" concept, which isn't
> > > > > aware of contiguous memory. It may be necessary to extend the 9p
> > > > > driver
> > > > > code to size requests not just according to their length in bytes
> > > > > but
> > > > > also according to the descriptor chain length. That's how the Linux
> > > > > block layer deals with queue limits (struct queue_limits
> > > > > max_segments vs
> > > > > max_hw_sectors).
> > > >
> > > > Hmm, can't follow on that one. For what should that be needed in case
> > > > of
> > > > 9p? My plan was to limit msize by 9p client simply at session start to
> > > > whatever is the max. amount virtio descriptors supported by host and
> > > > using PAGE_SIZE as size per descriptor, because that's what 9p client
> > > > actually does ATM (see above). So you think that should be changed to
> > > > e.g. just one descriptor for 4MB, right?
> > >
> > > Limiting msize to the 9p transport device's maximum number of
> > > descriptors is conservative (i.e. 128 descriptors = 512 KB msize)
> > > because it doesn't take advantage of contiguous memory. I suggest
> > > leaving msize alone, adding a separate limit at which requests are split
> > > according to the maximum descriptor chain length, and tweaking
> > > pack_sg_list() to coalesce adjacent pages.
> > >
> > > That way msize can be large without necessarily using lots of
> > > descriptors (depending on the memory layout).
> >
> > That was actually a tempting solution. Because it would neither require
> > changes to the virtio specs (at least for a while) and it would also work
> > with older QEMU versions. And for that pack_sg_list() portion of the code
> > it would work well and easy as the buffer passed to pack_sg_list() is
> > contiguous already.
> >
> > However I just realized for the zero-copy version of the code that would
> > be
> > more tricky. The ZC version already uses individual pages (struct page,
> > hence PAGE_SIZE each) which are pinned, i.e. it uses pack_sg_list_p() [1]
> > in combination with p9_get_mapped_pages() [2]
> >
> > [1]
> > https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/7ddb58cb0ecae8e8b6181d736a87667cc9
> > ab8389/net/9p/trans_virtio.c#L218 [2]
> > https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/7ddb58cb0ecae8e8b6181d736a87667cc9
> > ab8389/net/9p/trans_virtio.c#L309
> >
> > So that would require much more work and code trying to sort and coalesce
> > individual pages to contiguous physical memory for the sake of reducing
> > virtio descriptors. And there is no guarantee that this is even possible.
> > The kernel may simply return a non-contiguous set of pages which would
> > eventually end up exceeding the virtio descriptor limit again.
>
> Order must be preserved so pages cannot be sorted by physical address.
> How about simply coalescing when pages are adjacent?
It would help, but not solve the issue we are talking about here: if 99% of
the cases could successfully merge descriptors to stay below the descriptor
count limit, but in 1% of the cases it could not, then this still construes a
severe runtime issue that could trigger at any time.
> > So looks like it was probably still easier and realistic to just add
> > virtio
> > capabilities for now for allowing to exceed current descriptor limit.
>
> I'm still not sure why virtio-net, virtio-blk, virtio-fs, etc perform
> fine under today's limits while virtio-9p needs a much higher limit to
> achieve good performance. Maybe there is an issue in a layer above the
> vring that's causing the virtio-9p performance you've observed?
Are you referring to (somewhat) recent benchmarks when saying those would all
still perform fine today?
Vivek was running detailed benchmarks for virtiofs vs. 9p:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2020-12/msg02704.html
For the virtio aspect discussed here, only the benchmark configurations
without cache are relevant (9p-none, vtfs-none) and under this aspect the
situation seems to be quite similar between 9p and virtio-fs. You'll also note
once DAX is enabled (vtfs-none-dax) that apparently boosts virtio-fs
performance significantly, which however seems to corelate to numbers when I
am running 9p with msize > 300k. Note: Vivek was presumably running 9p
effecively with msize=300k, as this was the kernel limitation at that time.
To bring things into relation: there are known performance aspects in 9p that
can be improved, yes, both on Linux kernel side and on 9p server side in QEMU.
For instance 9p server uses coroutines [1] and currently dispatches between
worker thread(s) and main thread too often per request (partly addressed
already [2], but still WIP), which accumulates to overall latency. But Vivek
was actually using a 9p patch here which disabled coroutines entirely, which
suggests that the virtio transmission size limit still represents a
bottleneck.
[1] https://wiki.qemu.org/Documentation/9p#Coroutines
[2] https://wiki.qemu.org/Documentation/9p#Implementation_Plans
Best regards,
Christian Schoenebeck
- Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] virtio: increase VIRTQUEUE_MAX_SIZE to 32k, Christian Schoenebeck, 2021/11/01
- Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] virtio: increase VIRTQUEUE_MAX_SIZE to 32k, Stefan Hajnoczi, 2021/11/03
- Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] virtio: increase VIRTQUEUE_MAX_SIZE to 32k, Christian Schoenebeck, 2021/11/04
- Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] virtio: increase VIRTQUEUE_MAX_SIZE to 32k, Stefan Hajnoczi, 2021/11/09
- Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] virtio: increase VIRTQUEUE_MAX_SIZE to 32k,
Christian Schoenebeck <=
- Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] virtio: increase VIRTQUEUE_MAX_SIZE to 32k, Stefan Hajnoczi, 2021/11/10
- Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] virtio: increase VIRTQUEUE_MAX_SIZE to 32k, Christian Schoenebeck, 2021/11/10
- Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] virtio: increase VIRTQUEUE_MAX_SIZE to 32k, Stefan Hajnoczi, 2021/11/10
- Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] virtio: increase VIRTQUEUE_MAX_SIZE to 32k, Christian Schoenebeck, 2021/11/10
- Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] virtio: increase VIRTQUEUE_MAX_SIZE to 32k, Stefan Hajnoczi, 2021/11/11
- Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] virtio: increase VIRTQUEUE_MAX_SIZE to 32k, Christian Schoenebeck, 2021/11/11
- Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] virtio: increase VIRTQUEUE_MAX_SIZE to 32k, Stefan Hajnoczi, 2021/11/15
- Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] virtio: increase VIRTQUEUE_MAX_SIZE to 32k, Christian Schoenebeck, 2021/11/15
- Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] virtio: increase VIRTQUEUE_MAX_SIZE to 32k, Stefan Hajnoczi, 2021/11/16