Re: [RFC PATCH 00/22] Enhance VHOST to enable SoC-to-SoC communication
From: Kishon Vijay Abraham I
Date: Tue Sep 01 2020 - 01:25:03 EST
Hi,
On 28/08/20 4:04 pm, Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 14:26:53 +0800
Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[Let me note right at the beginning that I first noted this while
listening to Kishon's talk at LPC on Wednesday. I might be very
confused about the background here, so let me apologize beforehand for
any confusion I might spread.]
On 2020/7/8 下午9:13, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
Hi Jason,
On 7/8/2020 4:52 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
On 2020/7/7 下午10:45, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
Hi Jason,
On 7/7/2020 3:17 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
On 2020/7/6 下午5:32, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
Hi Jason,
On 7/3/2020 12:46 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
On 2020/7/2 下午9:35, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
Hi Jason,
On 7/2/2020 3:40 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
On 2020/7/2 下午5:51, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 01:51:21PM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
This series enhances Linux Vhost support to enable SoC-to-SoC
communication over MMIO. This series enables rpmsg communication between
two SoCs using both PCIe RC<->EP and HOST1-NTB-HOST2
1) Modify vhost to use standard Linux driver model
2) Add support in vring to access virtqueue over MMIO
3) Add vhost client driver for rpmsg
4) Add PCIe RC driver (uses virtio) and PCIe EP driver (uses vhost) for
rpmsg communication between two SoCs connected to each other
5) Add NTB Virtio driver and NTB Vhost driver for rpmsg communication
between two SoCs connected via NTB
6) Add configfs to configure the components
UseCase1 :
VHOST RPMSG VIRTIO RPMSG
+ +
| |
| |
| |
| |
+-----v------+ +------v-------+
| Linux | | Linux |
| Endpoint | | Root Complex |
| <-----------------> |
| | | |
| SOC1 | | SOC2 |
+------------+ +--------------+
UseCase 2:
VHOST RPMSG VIRTIO RPMSG
+ +
| |
| |
| |
| |
+------v------+ +------v------+
| | | |
| HOST1 | | HOST2 |
| | | |
+------^------+ +------^------+
| |
| |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| +------v------+ +------v------+ |
| | | | | |
| | EP | | EP | |
| | CONTROLLER1 | | CONTROLLER2 | |
| | <-----------------------------------> | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | SoC With Multiple EP Instances | | |
| | | (Configured using NTB Function) | | |
| +-------------+ +-------------+ |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
First of all, to clarify the terminology:
Is "vhost rpmsg" acting as what the virtio standard calls the 'device',
and "virtio rpmsg" as the 'driver'? Or is the "vhost" part mostly just
Right, vhost_rpmsg is 'device' and virtio_rpmsg is 'driver'.
virtqueues + the exiting vhost interfaces?
It's implemented to provide the full 'device' functionality.
Software Layering:
The high-level SW layering should look something like below. This series
adds support only for RPMSG VHOST, however something similar should be
done for net and scsi. With that any vhost device (PCI, NTB, Platform
device, user) can use any of the vhost client driver.
+----------------+ +-----------+ +------------+ +----------+
| RPMSG VHOST | | NET VHOST | | SCSI VHOST | | X |
+-------^--------+ +-----^-----+ +-----^------+ +----^-----+
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
+-----------v-----------------v--------------v--------------v----------+
| VHOST CORE |
+--------^---------------^--------------------^------------------^-----+
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
+--------v-------+ +----v------+ +----------v----------+ +----v-----+
| PCI EPF VHOST | | NTB VHOST | |PLATFORM DEVICE VHOST| | X |
+----------------+ +-----------+ +---------------------+ +----------+
So, the upper half is basically various functionality types, e.g. a net
device. What is the lower half, a hardware interface? Would it be
equivalent to e.g. a normal PCI device?
Right, the upper half should provide the functionality.
The bottom layer could be a HW interface (like PCIe device or NTB
device) or it could be a SW interface (for accessing virtio ring in
userspace) that could be used by Hypervisor.
The top half should be transparent to what type of device is actually
using it.
This was initially proposed here [1]
[1] ->
https://lore.kernel.org/r/2cf00ec4-1ed6-f66e-6897-006d1a5b6390@xxxxxx
I find this very interesting. A huge patchset so will take a bit
to review, but I certainly plan to do that. Thanks!
Yes, it would be better if there's a git branch for us to have a look.
I've pushed the branch
https://github.com/kishon/linux-wip.git vhost_rpmsg_pci_ntb_rfc
Thanks
Btw, I'm not sure I get the big picture, but I vaguely feel some of the
work is
duplicated with vDPA (e.g the epf transport or vhost bus).
This is about connecting two different HW systems both running Linux and
doesn't necessarily involve virtualization.
Right, this is something similar to VOP
(Documentation/misc-devices/mic/mic_overview.rst). The different is the
hardware I guess and VOP use userspace application to implement the device.
I'd also like to point out, this series tries to have communication between
two
SoCs in vendor agnostic way. Since this series solves for 2 usecases (PCIe
RC<->EP and NTB), for the NTB case it directly plugs into NTB framework and
any
of the HW in NTB below should be able to use a virtio-vhost communication
#ls drivers/ntb/hw/
amd epf idt intel mscc
And similarly for the PCIe RC<->EP communication, this adds a generic endpoint
function driver and hence any SoC that supports configurable PCIe endpoint can
use virtio-vhost communication
# ls drivers/pci/controller/dwc/*ep*
drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-ep.c
drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-uniphier-ep.c
drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-layerscape-ep.c
Thanks for those backgrounds.
So there is no guest or host as in
virtualization but two entirely different systems connected via PCIe cable,
one
acting as guest and one as host. So one system will provide virtio
functionality reserving memory for virtqueues and the other provides vhost
functionality providing a way to access the virtqueues in virtio memory.
One is
source and the other is sink and there is no intermediate entity. (vhost was
probably intermediate entity in virtualization?)
(Not a native English speaker) but "vhost" could introduce some confusion for
me since it was use for implementing virtio backend for userspace drivers. I
guess "vringh" could be better.
Initially I had named this vringh but later decided to choose vhost instead of
vringh. vhost is still a virtio backend (not necessarily userspace) though it
now resides in an entirely different system. Whatever virtio is for a frontend
system, vhost can be that for a backend system. vring can be for accessing
virtqueue and can be used either in frontend or backend.
I guess that clears up at least some of my questions from above...
Ok.
Have you considered to implement these through vDPA?
IIUC vDPA only provides an interface to userspace and an in-kernel rpmsg
driver
or vhost net driver is not provided.
The HW connection looks something like https://pasteboard.co/JfMVVHC.jpg
(usecase2 above),
I see.
all the boards run Linux. The middle board provides NTB
functionality and board on either side provides virtio/vhost
functionality and
transfer data using rpmsg.
This setup looks really interesting (sometimes, it's really hard to
imagine this in the abstract.)
So I wonder whether it's worthwhile for a new bus. Can we use
the existed virtio-bus/drivers? It might work as, except for
the epf transport, we can introduce a epf "vhost" transport
driver.
IMHO we'll need two buses one for frontend and other for
backend because the two components can then co-operate/interact
with each other to provide a functionality. Though both will
seemingly provide similar callbacks, they are both provide
symmetrical or complimentary funcitonality and need not be same
or identical.
Having the same bus can also create sequencing issues.
If you look at virtio_dev_probe() of virtio_bus
device_features = dev->config->get_features(dev);
Now if we use same bus for both front-end and back-end, both
will try to get_features when there has been no set_features.
Ideally vhost device should be initialized first with the set
of features it supports. Vhost and virtio should use "status"
and "features" complimentarily and not identically.
Yes, but there's no need for doing status/features passthrough
in epf vhost drivers.b
virtio device (or frontend) cannot be initialized before vhost
device (or backend) gets initialized with data such as
features. Similarly vhost (backend)
cannot access virqueues or buffers before virtio (frontend) sets
VIRTIO_CONFIG_S_DRIVER_OK whereas that requirement is not there
for virtio as the physical memory for virtqueues are created by
virtio (frontend).
epf vhost drivers need to implement two devices: vhost(vringh)
device and virtio device (which is a mediated device). The
vhost(vringh) device is doing feature negotiation with the
virtio device via RC/EP or NTB. The virtio device is doing
feature negotiation with local virtio drivers. If there're
feature mismatch, epf vhost drivers and do mediation between
them.
Here epf vhost should be initialized with a set of features for
it to negotiate either as vhost device or virtio device no? Where
should the initial feature set for epf vhost come from?
I think it can work as:
1) Having an initial features (hard coded in the code) set X in
epf vhost 2) Using this X for both virtio device and vhost(vringh)
device 3) local virtio driver will negotiate with virtio device
with feature set Y 4) remote virtio driver will negotiate with
vringh device with feature set Z 5) mediate between feature Y and
feature Z since both Y and Z are a subset of X
okay. I'm also thinking if we could have configfs for configuring
this. Anyways we could find different approaches of configuring
this.
Yes, and I think some management API is needed even in the design of
your "Software Layering". In that figure, rpmsg vhost need some
pre-set or hard-coded features.
When I saw the plumbers talk, my first idea was "this needs to be a new
transport". You have some hard-coded or pre-configured features, and
then features are negotiated via a transport-specific means in the
usual way. There's basically an extra/extended layer for this (and
status, and whatever).
I think for PCIe root complex to PCIe endpoint communication it's still
"Virtio Over PCI Bus", though existing layout cannot be used in this
context (find virtio capability will fail for modern interface and
loading queue status immediately after writing queue number is not
possible for root complex to endpoint communication; setup_vq() in
virtio_pci_legacy.c).
"Virtio Over NTB" should anyways be a new transport.
Does that make any sense?
yeah, in the approach I used the initial features are hard-coded in
vhost-rpmsg (inherent to the rpmsg) but when we have to use adapter
layer (vhost only for accessing virtio ring and use virtio drivers on
both front end and backend), based on the functionality (e.g, rpmsg),
the vhost should be configured with features (to be presented to the
virtio) and that's why additional layer or APIs will be required.
It will have virtqueues but only used for the communication
between itself and
uppter virtio driver. And it will have vringh queues which
will be probe by virtio epf transport drivers. And it needs to
do datacopy between virtqueue and
vringh queues.
It works like:
virtio drivers <- virtqueue/virtio-bus -> epf vhost drivers <-
vringh queue/epf>
The advantages is that there's no need for writing new buses
and drivers.
I think this will work however there is an addtional copy
between vringh queue and virtqueue,
I think not? E.g in use case 1), if we stick to virtio bus, we
will have:
virtio-rpmsg (EP) <- virtio ring(1) -> epf vhost driver (EP) <-
virtio ring(2) -> virtio pci (RC) <-> virtio rpmsg (RC)
IIUC epf vhost driver (EP) will access virtio ring(2) using
vringh?
Yes.
And virtio
ring(2) is created by virtio pci (RC).
Yes.
What epf vhost driver did is to read from virtio ring(1) about
the buffer len and addr and them DMA to Linux(RC)?
okay, I made some optimization here where vhost-rpmsg using a
helper writes a buffer from rpmsg's upper layer directly to
remote Linux (RC) as against here were it has to be first written
to virtio ring (1).
Thinking how this would look for NTB
virtio-rpmsg (HOST1) <- virtio ring(1) -> NTB(HOST1) <->
NTB(HOST2) <- virtio ring(2) -> virtio-rpmsg (HOST2)
Here the NTB(HOST1) will access the virtio ring(2) using vringh?
Yes, I think so it needs to use vring to access virtio ring (1) as
well.
NTB(HOST1) and virtio ring(1) will be in the same system. So it
doesn't have to use vring. virtio ring(1) is by the virtio device
the NTB(HOST1) creates.
Right.
Do you also think this will work seamlessly with virtio_net.c,
virtio_blk.c?
Yes.
okay, I haven't looked at this but the backend of virtio_blk should
access an actual storage device no?
Good point, for non-peer device like storage. There's probably no
need for it to be registered on the virtio bus and it might be better
to behave as you proposed.
I might be missing something; but if you expose something as a block
device, it should have something it can access with block reads/writes,
shouldn't it? Of course, that can be a variety of things.
Just to make sure I understand the design, how is VHOST SCSI expected
to work in your proposal, does it have a device for file as a backend?
I'd like to get clarity on two things in the approach you
suggested, one is features (since epf vhost should ideally be
transparent to any virtio driver)
We can have have an array of pre-defined features indexed by
virtio device id in the code.
and the other is how certain inputs to virtio device such as
number of buffers be determined.
We can start from hard coded the value like 256, or introduce some
API for user to change the value.
Thanks again for your suggestions!
You're welcome.
Note that I just want to check whether or not we can reuse the
virtio bus/driver. It's something similar to what you proposed in
Software Layering but we just replace "vhost core" with "virtio
bus" and move the vhost core below epf/ntb/platform transport.
Got it. My initial design was based on my understanding of your
comments [1].
Yes, but that's just for a networking device. If we want something
more generic, it may require more thought (bus etc).
I believe that we indeed need something bus-like to be able to support
a variety of devices.
I think we could still have adapter layers for different types of
devices ([1]) and use existing virtio bus for both front end and back
end. Using bus-like will however simplify adding support for new types
of devices and adding adapters for devices will be slightly more complex.
[1] -> Page 13 in
https://linuxplumbersconf.org/event/7/contributions/849/attachments/642/1175/Virtio_for_PCIe_RC_EP_NTB.pdf
I'll try to create something based on your proposed design here.
Sure, but for coding, we'd better wait for other's opinion here.
Please tell me if my thoughts above make any sense... I have just
started looking at that, so I might be completely off.
I think your understanding is correct! Thanks for your inputs.
Thanks
Kishon