[virtio] Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [virtio] [PATCH RFC] VIRTIO_F_PARTIAL_ORDER for page fault handling

[Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>]

On Tue, 11 Aug 2020 15:43:44 +0000
Lars Ganrot <lga@napatech.com> wrote:

> > From: virtio-comment@lists.oasis-open.org <virtio-comment@lists.oasis-  
> > open.org> On Behalf Of Lars Ganrot  
> > Sent: 11. august 2020 16:54
> >  
> > > From: virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > <virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org> On Behalf Of Michael S. Tsirkin
> > > Sent: 11. august 2020 10:23
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 06:59:28PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:  
> > > > On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 12:15:15 -0400
> > > > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > >  
> > > > > Devices that normally use buffers in order can benefit from
> > > > > ability to temporarily switch to handle some buffers out of order.
> > > > >
> > > > > As a case in point, a networking device might handle RX buffers in
> > > > > order normally. However, should an access to an RX buffer cause a
> > > > > page fault (e.g. when using PRI), the device could benefit from
> > > > > ability to temporarily keep using following buffers in the ring
> > > > > (possibly with higher overhead) until the fault has been resolved.
> > > > >
> > > > > Page faults allow more features such as THP, auto-NUMA, live
> > > > > migration.
> > > > >
> > > > > Out of order is of course already possible, however, IN_ORDER is
> > > > > currently required for descriptor batching where device marks a
> > > > > whole batch of buffers used in one go.
> > > > >
> > > > > The idea behind this proposal is to relax that requirement,
> > > > > allowing batching without asking device to be in orde rat all
> > > > > times, as
> > > > > follows:
> > > > >
> > > > > Device uses buffers in any order. Eventually when device detects
> > > > > that it has used all previously outstanding buffers, it sets a
> > > > > FLUSH flag on the last buffer used. If it set this flag on the
> > > > > last buffer used previously, and now uses a batch of descriptors
> > > > > in-order, it can now signal the last buffer used again setting the FLUSH  
> > flag.  
> > > > >
> > > > > Driver can detect in-order when it sees two FLUSH flags one after
> > > > > another. In other respects the feature is similar to IN_ORDER from
> > > > > the driver implementation POV.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  content.tex     |  9 ++++++++-
> > > > >  packed-ring.tex | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++  split-ring.tex  |
> > > > > 26
> > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > > > >  3 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/content.tex b/content.tex index 91735e3..8494eb6
> > > > > 100644
> > > > > --- a/content.tex
> > > > > +++ b/content.tex
> > > > > @@ -296,7 +296,11 @@ \section{Virtqueues}\label{sec:Basic
> > > > > Facilities of a Virtio Device / Virtqueues}
> > > > >
> > > > >  Some devices always use descriptors in the same order in which
> > > > > they have been made available. These devices can offer the
> > > > > -VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER feature. If negotiated, this knowledge
> > > > > +VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER feature.  Other devices sometimes use
> > > > > +descriptors in the same order in which they have been made
> > > > > +available. These devices can offer the VIRTIO_F_PARTIAL_ORDER
> > > > > +feature. If one of the features VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER or
> > > > > +VIRTIO_F_PARTIAL_ORDER is  
> > > negotiated,  
> > > > > +this knowledge  
> > > >
> > > > Do these two features conflict with each other? I.e., at most one of
> > > > them may be negotiated (or offered?) at a time?  
> > >
> > > Good point. I think so, yes. Will document.  
> >
> > Isn't it more natural to think of VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER as the simple case which
> > always maintains ordered access, while the new feature flag allows active
> > control of when descriptors are ordered and when not? To make it backward
> > compatible let VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER imply the new bit is set, while the new bit
> > set by itself without VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER set means only active control is
> > offered. I guess a name like VIRTIO_F_CTRL_ORDER would be more
> > appropriate with this interpretation.
> >  
> 
> On second thought that might be a bit backwards - how about:
> 
> Legacy case: VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER==0/1 + VIRTIO_F_ORDER_RELAX==0
> This proposal: VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER==1 + VIRTIO_F_ORDER_RELAX==1
> Potential future use: VIRTIO_F_???_ORDER==1 + VIRTIO_F_ORDER_RELAX==0/1

What happens in the new device/old driver case?
- device offers IN_ORDER and PARTIAL_ORDER
- driver does not know PARTIAL_ORDER, accepts IN_ORDER
- device now only can do complete ordering

Maybe I don't understand the purpose of the new feature correctly, but
I thought it was for those devices that don't do full in-order, but can
do it for a subset of buffers? As such, the two features can't really
imply each other: a device offering IN_ORDER might not know about the
new feature and its mechanism, and a device offering the new feature,
but not IN_ORDER probably does so because it cannot support full
IN_ORDER.

I think it makes the most sense if the device can offer both flags, but
the driver must only accept at most one of them?


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that 
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php