[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] docs/interop: define PROBE feature for vhost-user VirtIO devices
Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 01, 2023 at 12:00:18PM +0100, Alex BennÃe wrote:
>> Currently QEMU has to know some details about the VirtIO device
>> supported by a vhost-user daemon to be able to setup the guest. This
>> makes it hard for QEMU to add support for additional vhost-user
>> daemons without adding specific stubs for each additional VirtIO
>> device.
>>
>> This patch suggests a new feature flag (VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_PROBE)
>> which the back-end can advertise which allows a probe message to be
>> sent to get all the details QEMU needs to know in one message.
>>
>> Together with the existing features VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_STATUS and
>> VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_CONFIG we can create "standalone" vhost-user
>> daemons which are capable of handling all aspects of the VirtIO
>> transactions with only a generic stub on the QEMU side. These daemons
>> can also be used without QEMU in situations where there isn't a full
>> VMM managing their setup.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alex BennÃe <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
>
> I think the mindset for this change should be "vhost-user is becoming a
> VIRTIO Transport". VIRTIO Transports have a reasonably well-defined
> feature set in the VIRTIO specification. The goal should be to cover
> every VIRTIO Transport operation via vhost-user protocol messages so
> that the VIRTIO device model can be fully conveyed over vhost-user.
Is it though? The transport is a guest visible construct whereas
vhost-user is purely a backend implementation detail that should be
invisible to the guest.
Also the various backends do things a different set of ways. The
differences between MMIO and PCI are mostly around where config space is
and how IRQs are handled. For CCW we do actually have a set of commands
we can look at:
#define CCW_CMD_SET_VQ 0x13
#define CCW_CMD_VDEV_RESET 0x33
#define CCW_CMD_SET_IND 0x43
#define CCW_CMD_SET_CONF_IND 0x53
#define CCW_CMD_SET_IND_ADAPTER 0x73
#define CCW_CMD_READ_FEAT 0x12
#define CCW_CMD_WRITE_FEAT 0x11
#define CCW_CMD_READ_CONF 0x22
#define CCW_CMD_WRITE_CONF 0x21
#define CCW_CMD_WRITE_STATUS 0x31
#define CCW_CMD_READ_VQ_CONF 0x32
#define CCW_CMD_SET_VIRTIO_REV 0x83
#define CCW_CMD_READ_STATUS 0x72
which I think we already have mappings for.
> Anything less is yet another ad-hoc protocol extension that will lead to
> more bugs and hacks when it turns out some VIRTIO devices cannot be
> expressed due to limitations in the protocol.
I agree we want to do this right.
> This requires going through the VIRTIO spec to find a correspondence
> between virtio-pci/virtio-mmio/virtio-ccw's interfaces and vhost-user
> protocol messages. In most cases vhost-user already offers messages and
> your patch adds more of what is missing. I think this effort is already
> very close but missing the final check that it really matches the VIRTIO
> spec.
>
> Please do the comparison against the VIRTIO Transports and then adjust
> this patch to make it clear that the back-end is becoming a full-fledged
> VIRTIO Transport:
> - The name of the patch series should reflect that.
> - The vhost-user protocol feature should be named F_TRANSPORT.
> - The messages added in this patch should have a 1:1 correspondence with
> the VIRTIO spec including using the same terminology for consistency.
>
> Sorry for the hassle, but I think this is a really crucial point where
> we have the chance to make vhost-user work smoothly in the future...but
> only if we can faithfully expose VIRTIO Transport semantics.
I wonder if first be handled by cleaning up the VirtIO spec to make it
clear what capabilities each transport needs to support?
>> ---
>> v2
>> - dropped F_STANDALONE in favour of F_PROBE
>> - split probe details across several messages
>> - probe messages don't automatically imply a standalone daemon
>> - add wording where probe details interact (F_MQ/F_CONFIG)
>> - define VMM and make clear QEMU is only one of many potential VMMs
>> - reword commit message
>> ---
>> docs/interop/vhost-user.rst | 90 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>> hw/virtio/vhost-user.c | 8 ++++
>> 2 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/docs/interop/vhost-user.rst b/docs/interop/vhost-user.rst
>> index 5a070adbc1..ba3b5e07b7 100644
>> --- a/docs/interop/vhost-user.rst
>> +++ b/docs/interop/vhost-user.rst
>> @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@ Vhost-user Protocol
>> ..
>> Copyright 2014 Virtual Open Systems Sarl.
>> Copyright 2019 Intel Corporation
>> + Copyright 2023 Linaro Ltd
>> Licence: This work is licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL,
>> version 2 or later. See the COPYING file in the top-level
>> directory.
>> @@ -27,17 +28,31 @@ The protocol defines 2 sides of the communication, *front-end* and
>> *back-end*. The *front-end* is the application that shares its virtqueues, in
>> our case QEMU. The *back-end* is the consumer of the virtqueues.
>>
>> -In the current implementation QEMU is the *front-end*, and the *back-end*
>> -is the external process consuming the virtio queues, for example a
>> -software Ethernet switch running in user space, such as Snabbswitch,
>> -or a block device back-end processing read & write to a virtual
>> -disk. In order to facilitate interoperability between various back-end
>> -implementations, it is recommended to follow the :ref:`Backend program
>> -conventions <backend_conventions>`.
>> +In the current implementation a Virtual Machine Manager (VMM) such as
>> +QEMU is the *front-end*, and the *back-end* is the external process
>> +consuming the virtio queues, for example a software Ethernet switch
>> +running in user space, such as Snabbswitch, or a block device back-end
>> +processing read & write to a virtual disk. In order to facilitate
>> +interoperability between various back-end implementations, it is
>> +recommended to follow the :ref:`Backend program conventions
>> +<backend_conventions>`.
>>
>> The *front-end* and *back-end* can be either a client (i.e. connecting) or
>> server (listening) in the socket communication.
>>
>> +Probing device details
>> +----------------------
>> +
>> +Traditionally the vhost-user daemon *back-end* shares configuration
>> +responsibilities with the VMM *front-end* which needs to know certain
>> +key bits of information about the device. This means the VMM needs to
>> +define at least a minimal stub for each VirtIO device it wants to
>> +support. If the daemon supports the right set of protocol features the
>> +VMM can probe the daemon for the information it needs to setup the
>> +device.
>
> "... without a per-device stub in the VMM"
>
> This makes it clear that this sentence is describing an alternative
> to the per-device stub in the VMM.
>
>> See :ref:`Probing features for standalone daemons
>> +<probing_features>` for more details.
>
> The current section is named "Probing device details" and one being
> reference is called "Probing features for standalone daemons". Are
> "features" or "device details" two terms for the same thing? Why
> "daemons" and not "back-end"?
>
> I suggest calling this section "Standalone back-ends" and the other
> section "Probing standalone back-ends" to keep the terminology
> consistent.
>
>> +
>> +
>> Support for platforms other than Linux
>> --------------------------------------
>>
>> @@ -316,6 +331,7 @@ replies. Here is a list of the ones that do:
>> * ``VHOST_USER_GET_VRING_BASE``
>> * ``VHOST_USER_SET_LOG_BASE`` (if ``VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_LOG_SHMFD``)
>> * ``VHOST_USER_GET_INFLIGHT_FD`` (if ``VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_INFLIGHT_SHMFD``)
>> +* ``VHOST_USER_GET_BACKEND_SPECS`` (if ``VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_STANDALONE``)
>
> F_STANDALONE vs F_PROBE
>
> "SPECS" vs "features" vs "details".
>
> Please be consistent.
>
>>
>> .. seealso::
>>
>> @@ -396,9 +412,10 @@ must support changing some configuration aspects on the fly.
>> Multiple queue support
>> ----------------------
>>
>> -Many devices have a fixed number of virtqueues. In this case the front-end
>> -already knows the number of available virtqueues without communicating with the
>> -back-end.
>> +Many devices have a fixed number of virtqueues. In this case the
>> +*front-end* usually already knows the number of available virtqueues
>> +without communicating with the back-end. For standalone daemons this
>
> "Usually" is vague. It's possible to be precise:
>
> In this case a front-end that is aware of the device type already
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> knows the number of available virtqueues without communicating with
> the back-end.
>
>> +number can be can be probed with the ``VHOST_USER_GET_MIN_VQ`` message.
>
> Then this sentence can be adjusted to:
>
> When the front-end is not aware of the device type, the number can be
> probed with the ``VHOST_USER_GET_MIN_VQ`` message.
>
>>
>> Some devices do not have a fixed number of virtqueues. Instead the maximum
>> number of virtqueues is chosen by the back-end. The number can depend on host
>> @@ -885,6 +902,23 @@ Protocol features
>> #define VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_CONFIGURE_MEM_SLOTS 15
>> #define VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_STATUS 16
>> #define VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_XEN_MMAP 17
>> + #define VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_PROBE 18
>> +
>> +.. _probing_features:
>> +
>> +Probing features for standalone daemons
>> +---------------------------------------
>> +
>> +The protocol feature ``VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_PROBE`` enables a number
>> +of additional messages which allow the *front-end* to probe details
>> +about the VirtIO device from the *back-end*. However for a *back-end*
>> +to be described as standalone it must also support:
>> +
>> + * ``VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_STATUS``
>> + * ``VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_CONFIG`` (if there is a config space)
>> +
>> +which are required to ensure the *back-end* daemon can operate
>> +without the *front-end* managing some aspects of its configuration.
>>
>> Front-end message types
>> -----------------------
>> @@ -1440,6 +1474,42 @@ Front-end message types
>> query the back-end for its device status as defined in the Virtio
>> specification.
>>
>> +``VHOST_USER_GET_DEVICE_ID``
>> + :id: 41
>> + :request payload: N/A
>> + :reply payload: ``u32``
>> +
>> + When the ``VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_PROBE`` protocol feature has been
>> + successfully negotiated, this message is submitted by the front-end
>> + to query what VirtIO device the back-end support. This is intended
>> + to remove the need for the front-end to know ahead of time what the
>> + VirtIO device the backend emulates is.
>
> "... VIRTIO device type that the backend emulates is."
>
> "Device type" is the name used in the VIRTIO spec.
>
>> +
>> +``VHOST_USER_GET_CONFIG_SIZE``
>> + :id: 42
>> + :request payload: N/A
>> + :reply payload: ``u32``
>> +
>> + When the ``VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_PROBE`` protocol feature has been
>> + successfully negotiated, this message is submitted by the front-end
>> + to query the size of the VirtIO device's config space. This is
>> + intended to remove the need for the front-end to know ahead of time
>> + what the size is. Replying with 0 when
>> + ``VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_CONFIG`` has been negotiated would indicate
>> + an bug.
>
> "a bug"
>
> What is the harm in returning 0 when the device has an empty
> Configuration Space like the Entropy device, the I2C Adapter, the SCMI
> device, etc?
>
>> +
>> +``VHOST_USER_GET_MIN_VQ``
>> + :id: 43
>> + :request payload: N/A
>> + :reply payload: ``u32``
>> +
>> + When the ``VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_PROBE`` protocol feature has been
>> + successfully negotiated, this message is submitted by the front-end to
>> + query minimum number of VQ's required to support the device. A
>> + device may support more than this number of VQ's if it advertises
>> + the ``VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_MQ`` protocol feature. Reporting a
>> + number greater than the result of ``VHOST_USER_GET_QUEUE_NUM`` would
>> + indicate a bug.
>
> What is the purpose of this message? I don't see an equivalent in the
> VIRTIO specification.
>
>>
>> Back-end message types
>> ----------------------
>> diff --git a/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c b/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c
>> index 8dcf049d42..4d433cdf2b 100644
>> --- a/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c
>> +++ b/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c
>> @@ -202,6 +202,13 @@ typedef struct VhostUserInflight {
>> uint16_t queue_size;
>> } VhostUserInflight;
>>
>> +typedef struct VhostUserBackendSpecs {
>> + uint32_t device_id;
>> + uint32_t config_size;
>> + uint32_t min_vqs;
>> + uint32_t max_vqs;
>> +} VhostUserBackendSpecs;
>
> This message is undocumented? I think it may be outdated and you split
> it up into individual messages.
>
>> +
>> typedef struct {
>> VhostUserRequest request;
>>
>> @@ -226,6 +233,7 @@ typedef union {
>> VhostUserCryptoSession session;
>> VhostUserVringArea area;
>> VhostUserInflight inflight;
>> + VhostUserBackendSpecs specs;
>> } VhostUserPayload;
>>
>> typedef struct VhostUserMsg {
>> --
>> 2.39.2
>>
--
Alex BennÃe
Virtualisation Tech Lead @ Linaro
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]