Re: [PATCH v2] vhost: introduce mdev based hardware backend

[Tiwei Bie <tiwei.bie@intel.com>]

On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 11:50:49AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> On 2019/10/28 上午9:58, Tiwei Bie wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 08:16:26AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 05:54:55PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > On 2019/10/24 下午6:42, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > Yes.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > >    And we should try to avoid
> > > > > > putting ctrl vq and Rx/Tx vqs in the same DMA space to prevent
> > > > > > guests having the chance to bypass the host (e.g. QEMU) to
> > > > > > setup the backend accelerator directly.
> > > > > 
> > > > > That's really good point.  So when "vhost" type is created, parent
> > > > > should assume addr of ctrl_vq is hva.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > 
> > > > This works for vhost but not virtio since there's no way for virtio kernel
> > > > driver to differ ctrl_vq with the rest when doing DMA map. One possible
> > > > solution is to provide DMA domain isolation between virtqueues. Then ctrl vq
> > > > can use its dedicated DMA domain for the work.
> > It might not be a bad idea to let the parent drivers distinguish
> > between virtio-mdev mdevs and vhost-mdev mdevs in ctrl-vq handling
> > by mdev's class id.
> 
> 
> Yes, that should work, I have something probable better, see below.
> 
> 
> > 
> > > > Anyway, this could be done in the future. We can have a version first that
> > > > doesn't support ctrl_vq.
> > +1, thanks
> > 
> > > > Thanks
> > > Well no ctrl_vq implies either no offloads, or no XDP (since XDP needs
> > > to disable offloads dynamically).
> > > 
> > >          if (!virtio_has_feature(vi->vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_CTRL_GUEST_OFFLOADS)
> > >              && (virtio_has_feature(vi->vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_GUEST_TSO4) ||
> > >                  virtio_has_feature(vi->vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_GUEST_TSO6) ||
> > >                  virtio_has_feature(vi->vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_GUEST_ECN) ||
> > >                  virtio_has_feature(vi->vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_GUEST_UFO) ||
> > >                  virtio_has_feature(vi->vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_GUEST_CSUM))) {
> > >                  NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, "Can't set XDP while host is implementing LRO/CSUM, disable LRO/CSUM first");
> > >                  return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > >          }
> > > 
> > > neither is very attractive.
> > > 
> > > So yes ok just for development but we do need to figure out how it will
> > > work down the road in production.
> > Totally agree.
> > 
> > > So really this specific virtio net device does not support control vq,
> > > instead it supports a different transport specific way to send commands
> > > to device.
> > > 
> > > Some kind of extension to the transport? Ideas?
> 
> 
> So it's basically an issue of isolating DMA domains. Maybe we can start with
> transport API for querying per vq DMA domain/ASID?
> 
> - for vhost-mdev, userspace can query the DMA domain for each specific
> virtqueue. For control vq, mdev can return id for software domain, for the
> rest mdev will return id of VFIO domain. Then userspace know that it should
> use different API for preparing the virtqueue, e.g for vq other than control
> vq, it should use VFIO DMA API. The control vq it should use hva instead.
> 
> - for virito-mdev, we can introduce per-vq DMA device, and route DMA mapping
> request for control vq back to mdev instead of the hardware. (We can wrap
> them into library or helpers to ease the development of vendor physical
> drivers).

Thanks for this proposal! I'm thinking about it these days.
I think it might be too complicated. I'm wondering whether we
can have something simpler. I will post a RFC patch to show
my idea today.

Thanks,
Tiwei

> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > MST
>