Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v2 2/2] virtio_net: Extend virtio to use VF datapath when available

From: "Samudrala, Sridhar" <sridhar.samudrala@intel.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@wp.pl>, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@intel.com>,
	virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org, Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
	Siwei Liu <loseweigh@gmail.com>,
	David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v2 2/2] virtio_net: Extend virtio to use VF datapath when available
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 15:30:35 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5fa8c6c6-4a94-91fa-fdbb-ee7b624d703f@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180126144704.6e1a9628@cakuba.netronome.com>

On 1/26/2018 2:47 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jan 2018 00:14:20 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 01:46:42PM -0800, Siwei Liu wrote:
>>>> and the VM is not expected to do any tuning/optimizations on the VF driver
>>>> directly,
>>>> i think the current patch that follows the netvsc model of 2 netdevs(virtio
>>>> and vf) should
>>>> work fine.
>>> OK. For your use case that's fine. But that's too specific scenario
>>> with lots of restrictions IMHO, perhaps very few users will benefit
>>> from it, I'm not sure. If you're unwilling to move towards it, we'd
>>> take this one and come back with a generic solution that is able to
>>> address general use cases for VF/PT live migration .
>> I think that's a fine approach. Scratch your own itch!  I imagine a very
>> generic virtio-switchdev providing host routing info to guests could
>> address lots of usecases. A driver could bind to that one and enslave
>> arbitrary other devices.  Sounds reasonable.
>>
>> But given the fundamental idea of a failover was floated at least as
>> early as 2013, and made 0 progress since precisely because it kept
>> trying to address more and more features, and given netvsc is already
>> using the basic solution with some success, I'm not inclined to block
>> this specific effort waiting for the generic one.
> I think there is an agreement that the extra netdev will be useful for
> more advanced use cases, and is generally preferable.  What is the
> argument for not doing that from the start?  If it was made I must have
> missed it.  Is it just unwillingness to write the extra 300 lines of
> code?  Sounds like a pretty weak argument when adding kernel ABI is at
> stake...

I am still not clear on the need for the extra netdev created by 
virtio_net. The only advantage
i can see is that the stats can be broken between VF and virtio 
datapaths compared
to the aggregrated stats on virtio netdev as seen with the 2 netdev 
approach.

With 2 netdev model, any VM image that has a working network 
configuration will transparently get
VF based acceleration without any changes. 3 netdev model breaks this 
configuration starting with the
creation and naming of the 2 devices to udev needing to be aware of 
master and slave virtio-net devices.
Also, from a user experience point of view, loading a virtio-net with 
BACKUP feature
enabled will  now show 2 virtio-net netdevs.

For live migration with advanced usecases that Siwei is suggesting, i 
think we need a new driver
with a new device type that can track the VF specific feature settings 
even when the VF driver is unloaded.

Thanks
Sridhar

_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization