Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] transport-pci: Introduce legacy registers access using AQ

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

On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 03:04:40PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 3:43âPM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 03:01:25PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 2:05âPM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, May 08, 2023 at 10:23:39AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > > I thought so too originally. Unfortunately I now think that no, legacy is not
> > > > > > going to be a byproduct of transport virtqueue for modern -
> > > > > > it is different enough that it needs dedicated commands.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you mean the transport virtqueue, I think some dedicated commands
> > > > > for legacy are needed. Then it would be a transport that supports
> > > > > transitional devices. It would be much better than having commands for
> > > > > a partial transport like this patch did.
> > > >
> > > > OK I am beginning to get what you are saying.  So your criticism is
> > > > this: what if device supports vq transport for modern, and we want to
> > > > build a transitional device on top.  how will that look. yes?
> > >
> > > Yes. I think it needs to be done through the transport virtqueue
> > > otherwise the transport is not self-contained.
> >
> > I mean, any feature can be done over transport vq.
> >
> > But there is value in adding legacy commands to an otherwise
> > modern device without reworking it completely to
> > switch to a different transport.
> 
> There's probably no need for a rework since legacy is not complicated.
> More below.
> 
> >
> >
> > > > A reasonable thing to include at least in the commit log. Parav?
> > > >
> > > > You are also asking what if the device uses transport vq,
> > > > and we want transitional on top of that.
> > > > It's a fair question but I don't exactly get why would
> > > > this legacy support feature be wanted for the vq transport
> > > > and not for other transports.
> > >
> > > Not sure I get the question, but all the existing transport support
> > > legacy, if we want to have another, should the legacy support be a
> > > must or not?
> >
> > This specific proposal is for tunneling legacy over admin vq.
> > It can live alongside a normal modern VF, with hypervisor
> > combining these to create a transitional device.
> 
> Exactly, but what I meant here is
> 
> If we decide to use the admin vq, is there any good reason to tie it
> to PCI if we don't want to tunneling PCI over adminq?
> 
> Why not simply invent individual commands to access legacy facilities
> like commands to access like what transport virtqueue did for modern
> device?:
> 
> 1) device features
> 2) driver features
> 3) queue address
> 4) queue size
> 5) queue select
> 6) queue notify
> 7) device status
> 8) ISR status
> 9) config msix
> 10) queue msix
> 11) device configuration space
> 
> It focuses on the facilities instead of transport specific details
> like registers (we don't even need legacy registers in this case), I
> gives more deterministic behavior so we don't need to care about the
> cross registers read/write.

This needs thought, it is definitely more work.  Effort that could be
maybe spent on new features.  What is the motivation
here? supporting legacy mmio guests?


> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > Consider simplest case, multibyte fields. Legacy needs multibyte write,
> > > > > > modern does not even need multibyte read.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not sure I will get here,
> > > >
> > > > What does this mean?
> > >
> > > I meant I don't get what the issue if "modern does not even need
> > > multibyte read".
> >
> > parse error again. reword?
> 
> I meant we need two sets of command for legacy and modern. We can
> choose not to expose multibyte reads for modern commands.
> 
> >
> > > >
> > > > > since we can't expose admin vq to
> > > > > guests, it means we need some software mediation. So if we just
> > > > > implement what PCI allows us, then everything would be fine (even if
> > > > > some method is not used).
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > > To repeat discussion on one of the previous versions, no it will not be
> > > > fine because legacy virtio abuses pci in fundamentally broken ways.
> > > > So yes you need a mediator on the host but even giving this
> > > > mediator a chance to be robust on top of hardware
> > > > means the hardware interface can not simply mirror legacy
> > > > to hardware.
> > > >
> > > > For example, host mediator needs to trap writes into mac,
> > > > buffer them and then send a 6 byte write.
> > > > Now, pci actually does allow 6 byte writes, but legacy
> > > > guests instead to 6 single byte writes for portability reasons.
> > >
> > > It's a known race condition, so PCI over adminq doesn't make it worse.
> >
> > it can however make it better - you can do a single 6 byte write command.
> >
> 
> It would be tricky to detect when a legacy guest has finished writing
> to the mac.
> 
> > > The mediator can just mirror what guests write over the admin
> > > commands.
> >
> > and this "just" just isn't good enough, or we end up with hacks
> > in hardware.
> 
> Yes but this "issue" exists in this proposal as well.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > > --
> > > > MSr
> > > >
> >