Re: [PATCH] vhost: introduce mdev based hardware backend

[Jason Wang]

On 2019/9/27 äå9:23, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 09:17:56PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > On 2019/9/27 äå8:46, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 08:17:47PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > On 2019/9/27 äå5:41, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 11:27:12AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > > On 2019/9/26 äå9:14, Tiwei Bie wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 04:35:18AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 12:54:27PM +0800, Tiwei Bie wrote:
> > > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/vhost.h b/include/uapi/linux/vhost.h
> > > > > > > > > index 40d028eed645..5afbc2f08fa3 100644
> > > > > > > > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/vhost.h
> > > > > > > > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/vhost.h
> > > > > > > > > @@ -116,4 +116,12 @@
> > > > > > > > >      #define VHOST_VSOCK_SET_GUEST_CID	_IOW(VHOST_VIRTIO, 0x60, __u64)
> > > > > > > > >      #define VHOST_VSOCK_SET_RUNNING		_IOW(VHOST_VIRTIO, 0x61, int)
> > > > > > > > > +/* VHOST_MDEV specific defines */
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > +#define VHOST_MDEV_SET_STATE	_IOW(VHOST_VIRTIO, 0x70, __u64)
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > +#define VHOST_MDEV_S_STOPPED	0
> > > > > > > > > +#define VHOST_MDEV_S_RUNNING	1
> > > > > > > > > +#define VHOST_MDEV_S_MAX	2
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > >      #endif
> > > > > > > > So assuming we have an underlying device that behaves like virtio:
> > > > > > > I think they are really good questions/suggestions. Thanks!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1. Should we use SET_STATUS maybe?
> > > > > > > I like this idea. I will give it a try.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2. Do we want a reset ioctl?
> > > > > > > I think it is helpful. If we use SET_STATUS, maybe we
> > > > > > > can use it to support the reset.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 3. Do we want ability to enable rings individually?
> > > > > > > I will make it possible at least in the vhost layer.
> > > > > > Note the API support e.g set_vq_ready().
> > > > > virtio spec calls this "enabled" so let's stick to that.
> > > > Ok.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > > 4. Does device need to limit max ring size?
> > > > > > > > 5. Does device need to limit max number of queues?
> > > > > > > I think so. It's helpful to have ioctls to report the max
> > > > > > > ring size and max number of queues.
> > > > > > An issue is the max number of queues is done through a device specific way,
> > > > > > usually device configuration space. This is supported by the transport API,
> > > > > > but how to expose it to userspace may need more thought.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > an ioctl for device config?  But for v1 I'd be quite happy to just have
> > > > > a minimal working device with 2 queues.
> > > > I'm fully agree, and it will work as long as VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ and
> > > > VIRTIO_NET_F_CTRL_VQ is not advertised by the mdev device.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > Hmm this means we need to validate the features bits,
> > > not just pass them through to the hardware.
> > > Problem is, how do we add more feature bits later,
> > > without testing all hardware?
> > > I guess this means the device specific driver must do it.
> > That looks not good, maybe a virtio device id based features blacklist in
> > vhost-mdev. Then MQ and CTRL_VQ could be filtered out by vhost-mdev.
> >
> > Thanks
> Two implementations of e.g. virtio net can have different
> features whitelisted.


I meant for kernel driver, we won't blacklist any feature, but for 
vhost-mdev, we need to do that.


>   So I think there's no way but let
> the driver do it. We should probably provide a standard place
> in the ops for driver to supply the whitelist, to make sure
> drivers don't forget.


For 'driver' do you mean userspace driver of the mdev device?

Thanks



>