Re: [PATCH v1] s390/virtio_ccw: don't allocate/assign airqs for non-existing queues

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

On Wed, Apr 09, 2025 at 02:24:32PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 09.04.25 14:07, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 09, 2025 at 01:12:19PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > On 09.04.25 12:56, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Apr 09, 2025 at 12:46:41PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > > > On 07.04.25 23:20, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 08:47:05PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > > > > > > In my opinion, it makes the most sense to keep the spec as it is and
> > > > > > > > change QEMU and the kernel to match, but obviously that's not trivial
> > > > > > > > to do in a way that doesn't break existing devices and drivers.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > If only it would be limited to QEMU and Linux ... :)
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Out of curiosity, assuming we'd make the spec match the current QEMU/Linux
> > > > > > > implementation at least for the 3 involved features only, would there be a
> > > > > > > way to adjust crossvm without any disruption?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I still have the feeling that it will be rather hard to get that all
> > > > > > > implementations match the spec ... For new features+queues it will be easy
> > > > > > > to force the usage of fixed virtqueue numbers, but for free-page-hinting and
> > > > > > > reporting, it's a mess :(
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Still thinking about a way to fix drivers... We can discuss this
> > > > > > theoretically, maybe?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yes, absolutely. I took the time to do some more digging; regarding drivers
> > > > > only Linux seems to be problematic.
> > > > > 
> > > > > virtio-win, FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD and don't seem to support
> > > > > problematic features (free page hinting, free page reporting) in their
> > > > > virtio-balloon implementations.
> > > > > 
> > > > > So from the known drivers, only Linux is applicable.
> > > > > 
> > > > > reporting_vq is either at idx 4/3/2
> > > > > free_page_vq is either at idx 3/2
> > > > > statsq is at idx2 (only relevant if the feature is offered)
> > > > > 
> > > > > So if we could test for the existence of a virtqueue at an idx easily, we
> > > > > could test from highest-to-smallest idx.
> > > > > 
> > > > > But I recall that testing for the existance of a virtqueue on s390x resulted
> > > > > in the problem/deadlock in the first place ...
> > > > > 
> > > > > -- 
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > 
> > > > > David / dhildenb
> > > > 
> > > > So let's talk about a new feature bit?
> > > 
> > > Are you thinking about a new feature that switches between "fixed queue
> > > indices" and "compressed queue indices", whereby the latter would be the
> > > legacy default and we would expect all devices to switch to the new
> > > fixed-queue-indices layout?
> > > 
> > > We could make all new features require "fixed-queue-indices".
> > 
> > I see two ways:
> > 1. we make driver behave correctly with in spec and out of spec devices
> >     and we make qemu behave correctly with in spec and out of spec devices
> > 2. a new feature bit
> > 
> > I prefer 1, and when we add a new feature we can also
> > document that it should be in spec if negotiated.
> > 
> > My question is if 1 is practical.
> 
> AFAIKT, 1) implies:
> 
> virtio-balloon:
> 
> a) Driver
> 
> As mentioned above, we'd need a reliable way to test for the existence of a
> virtqueue, so we can e.g., test for reporting_vq idx 4 -> 3 -> 2
> 
> With that we'd be able to support compressed+fixed at the same time.
> 
> Q: Is it possible/feasible?
> 
> b) Device: virtio-balloon: we can fake existence of STAT and
> FREE_PAGE_HINTING easily, such that the compressed layout corresponds to the
> fixed layout easily.
> 
> Q: alternatives? We could try creating multiple queues for the same feature,
> but it's going to be a mess I'm afraid ...
> 
> 
> virtio-fs:
> 
> a) Driver
> 
> Linux does not even implement VIRTIO_FS_F_NOTIFICATION or respect
> VIRTIO_FS_F_NOTIFICATION when calculating queue indices, ...
> 
> b) Device
> 
> Same applies to virtiofsd ...
> 
> Q: Did anybody actually implement VIRTIO_FS_F_NOTIFICATION ever? If not, can
> we just remove it from the spec completely and resolve the issue that way?

Donnu. Vivek?

Or we can check for queue number 1+num_request_queues maybe?
If that exists then it is spec compliant?


> -- 
> Cheers,
> 
> David / dhildenb