Re: [PATCH 1/5] Add virtio Admin Virtqueue specification

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 07:57:36AM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
> 
> 
> > From: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 11:47 AM
> > 
> > On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 03:22:27AM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > > > I don't recall discussion about UUID so I can't really say what I think about
> > that.
> > > > Do we need a UUID? I'm not sure I understand why.
> > > > It can't hurt to abstract things a bit so it's not all tied to
> > > > PFs/VFs since we know we'll want subfunctions down the road, too, if that
> > is what you mean.
> > > >
> > > I still didn't find any reason in the discussion to find out why grouping device
> > is needed.
> > 
> > VFs are already grouped with their PF. However we should spell this out as the
> > motivation for the admin queue.
> >
> Ok. so for now, we are not introducing any explicitly grouping concept.
> In v2, will revise to have description as,
> 
> PCI VFs of a parent PCI PF device are grouped together. These devices can be optionally managed by its parent PCI PF.
>  
> > > Current AQ proposal implicitly indicates that VFs of a PF are managed by its
> > parent PF.
> > > And for some reason this work by one of the VF, this role assignment
> > > can be certainly a new command on AQ as group command or some other
> > > command.
> > 
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Following this idea, all commands would then gain fields for
> > > > > > addressing one device from another.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not everything maps well to a queue. E.g. it would be great to
> > > > > > have list of available commands in memory.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not sure I agree. Why can't it map to a queue ?
> > > >
> > > > You can map it to a queue, yes. But something static and read only
> > > > such as list of commands maps well to config space. And it's not
> > > > controlling one device from another, so does not really seem to belong in
> > the admin queue.
> > > >
> > > Aq serves the writing device config too in patch-5 in this patchset.
> > 
> > List of available admin commands does not need to be written.
> >
> It is not written into the aq commands.
> It is part of the feature bit VIRTIO_F_ADMIN_PCI_VIRT_MANAGER indicating a given functionality supported or not in patch-5.


Btw I don't see what does "VIRT_MANAGER" mean here. "manager" is just a
generic thing that means nothing, and VIRT just repeats VIRTIO.


> And structure like, virtio_admin_pci_virt_mgmt_attr_identify_result can potentially grow and storing those fields on on-chip resource is less efficient.
> Hence, they are shared via AQ.

The issue is this: VIRTIO_F_ADMIN_PCI_VIRT_MANAGER seems to mean
there are pci related admin commands. OK I guess. However you then
say this same feature bit implies generic functionality like
list of supported commands. Confusing.


>  
> > > > >
> > > > > > Figuring out max vectors also looks like a good example for
> > > > > > memory and not through a command.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any explanation why is it looks good ? or better ?
> > > >
> > > > why is memory easier to operate than a VQ?
> > > > It's much simpler and so less error prone.  you can have multiple
> > > > actors read such a field at the same time without races, so e.g.
> > > > there could be a sysfs attribute that reads from device on each
> > > > access, and not special error handling is needed.
> > > >
> > > Writing fields is inherent part of the aq without getting blocked on previous
> > writes.
> > > I see you acked that AQ is fine in cover letter patch as below, so we are sync
> > on the motivation now.
> > > Yes, will update the commit log as you suggested.
> > >
> > >  " if the answer is "commands A,B,C do not fit in config space, we placed
> > commands D,E in a VQ for consistency"
> > > then that is an ok answer, but it's something to be mentioned in the commit
> > log"