Re: [RFC PATCH v9 12/16] Add mp(mediate passthru) device.

Michael S. Tsirkin
2010-09-26T11:56:33Z

On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 08:56:33PM +0800, Xin, Xiaohui wrote:
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Michael S. Tsirkin [mailto:mst@redhat.com]
> >Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 7:55 PM
> >To: Xin, Xiaohui
> >Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
> >mingo@elte.hu; davem@davemloft.net; herbert@gondor.hengli.com.au;
> >jdike@linux.intel.com
> >Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v9 12/16] Add mp(mediate passthru) device.
> >
> >On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 07:41:36PM +0800, Xin, Xiaohui wrote:
> >> >-----Original Message-----
> >> >From: Michael S. Tsirkin [mailto:mst@redhat.com]
> >> >Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 9:14 PM
> >> >To: Xin, Xiaohui
> >> >Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
> >> >mingo@elte.hu; davem@davemloft.net; herbert@gondor.hengli.com.au;
> >> >jdike@linux.intel.com
> >> >Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v9 12/16] Add mp(mediate passthru) device.
> >> >
> >> >On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 09:39:31AM +0800, Xin, Xiaohui wrote:
> >> >> >From: Michael S. Tsirkin [mailto:mst@redhat.com]
> >> >> >Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 7:37 PM
> >> >> >To: Xin, Xiaohui
> >> >> >Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
> >> >> >mingo@elte.hu; davem@davemloft.net; herbert@gondor.hengli.com.au;
> >> >> >jdike@linux.intel.com
> >> >> >Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v9 12/16] Add mp(mediate passthru) device.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 04:08:48PM +0800, xiaohui.xin@intel.com wrote:
> >> >> >> From: Xin Xiaohui <xiaohui.xin@intel.com>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> ---
> >> >> >> Michael,
> >> >> >> I have move the ioctl to configure the locked memory to vhost
> >> >> >
> >> >> >It's ok to move this to vhost but vhost does not
> >> >> >know how much memory is needed by the backend.
> >> >>
> >> >> I think the backend here you mean is mp device.
> >> >> Actually, the memory needed is related to vq->num to run zero-copy
> >> >> smoothly.
> >> >> That means mp device did not know it but vhost did.
> >> >
> >> >Well, this might be so if you insist on locking
> >> >all posted buffers immediately. However, let's assume I have a
> >> >very large ring and prepost a ton of RX buffers:
> >> >there's no need to lock all of them directly:
> >> >
> >> >if we have buffers A and B, we can lock A, pass it
> >> >to hardware, and when A is consumed unlock A, lock B
> >> >and pass it to hardware.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >It's not really critical. But note we can always have userspace
> >> >tell MP device all it wants to know, after all.
> >> >
> >> Ok. Here are two values we have mentioned, one is how much memory
> >> user application wants to lock, and one is how much memory locked
> >> is needed to run smoothly. When net backend is setup, we first need
> >> an ioctl to get how much memory is needed to lock, and then we call
> >> another ioctl to set how much it want to lock. Is that what's in your mind?
> >
> >That's fine.
> >
> >> >> And the rlimt stuff is per process, we use current pointer to set
> >> >> and check the rlimit, the operations should be in the same process.
> >> >
> >> >Well no, the ring is handled from the kernel thread: we switch the mm to
> >> >point to the owner task so copy from/to user and friends work, but you
> >> >can't access the rlimit etc.
> >> >
> >> Yes, the userspace and vhost kernel is not the same process. But we can
> >> record the task pointer as mm.
> >
> >So you will have to store mm and do device->mm, not current->mm.
> >Anyway, better not touch mm on data path.
> >
> >> >> Now the check operations are in vhost process, as mp_recvmsg() or
> >> >> mp_sendmsg() are called by vhost.
> >> >
> >> >Hmm, what do you mean by the check operations?
> >> >send/recv are data path operations, they shouldn't
> >> >do any checks, should they?
> >> >
> >> As you mentioned what infiniband driver done:
> >> down_write(&current->mm->mmap_sem);
> >>
> >> locked = npages + current->mm->locked_vm;
> >> lock_limit = rlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> >>
> >> if ((locked > lock_limit) && !capable(CAP_IPC_LOCK)) {
> >> ret = -ENOMEM;
> >> goto out;
> >> }
> >>
> >> cur_base = addr & PAGE_MASK;
> >>
> >> ret = 0;
> >> while (npages) {
> >> ret = get_user_pages(current, current->mm, cur_base,
> >> min_t(unsigned long, npages,
> >> PAGE_SIZE / sizeof (struct page *)),
> >> 1, !umem->writable, page_list, vma_list);
> >>
> >> I think it's a data path too.
> >
> >in infiniband this is used to 'register memory' which is not data path.
> >
> >> We do the check because get_user_pages() really pin and locked
> >> the memory.
> >
> >Don't do this. Performance will be bad.
> >Do the check once in ioctl and increment locked_vm by max amount you will use.
> >On data path just make sure you do not exceed what userspace told you
> >to.
>
> What's in my mind is that in the ioctl which to get the memory locked needed to run smoothly,
> it just return a value of how much memory is needed by mp device.
> And then in the ioctl which to set the memory locked by user space, it check the rlimit and
> increment locked_vm by user want.

Fine.

> But I'm not sure how to "make sure do not exceed what
> userspace told to". If we don't check locked_vm, what do we use to check? And Is it another kind of check on data path?

An example: on ioctl we have incremented locked_vm by say 128K.
We will record this number 128K in mp data structure and on data path
verify that amount of memory we actually lock with get_user_pages_fast
does not exceed 128K. This is not part of mm and so can use
any locking scheme, no need to take mm semaphore.

> >
> >>
> >> >> So set operations should be in
> >> >> vhost process too, it's natural.
> >> >>
> >> >> >So I think we'll need another ioctl in the backend
> >> >> >to tell userspace how much memory is needed?
> >> >> >
> >> >> Except vhost tells it to mp device, mp did not know
> >> >> how much memory is needed to run zero-copy smoothly.
> >> >> Is userspace interested about the memory mp is needed?
> >> >
> >> >Couldn't parse this last question.
> >> >I think userspace generally does want control over
> >> >how much memory we'll lock. We should not just lock
> >> >as much as we can.
> >> >
> >> >--
> >> >MST