[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [virtio-comment] Re: [PATCH v1 3/8] device-context: Define the device context fields for device migration
On 10/10/2023 5:58 PM, Parav Pandit wrote:
From: Zhu, Lingshan <lingshan.zhu@intel.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 2:22 PM On 10/9/2023 10:30 PM, Parav Pandit wrote:From: Zhu, Lingshan <lingshan.zhu@intel.com> Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 4:04 PM On 10/8/2023 7:41 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:On Sun, Oct 08, 2023 at 02:25:50PM +0300, Parav Pandit wrote:Define the device context and its fields for purpose of device migration. The device context is read and written by the owner driver on source and destination hypervisor respectively. Device context fields will experience a rapid growth post this initial version to cover many details of the device. Fixes: https://github.com/oasis-tcs/virtio-spec/issues/176 Signed-off-by: Parav Pandit <parav@nvidia.com> Signed-off-by: Satananda Burla <sburla@marvell.com> --- changelog: v0->v1: - enrich device context to cover feature bits, device configuration fields - corrected alignment of device context fields --- content.tex | 1 + device-context.tex | 142+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++2 files changed, 143 insertions(+) create mode 100644 device-context.tex diff --git a/content.tex b/content.tex index 0a62dce..2698931 100644 --- a/content.tex +++ b/content.tex @@ -503,6 +503,7 @@ \section{Exporting Objects}\label{sec:Basic Facilitiesof a Virtio Device / ExpoUUIDs as specified by \hyperref[intro:rfc4122]{[RFC4122]}. \input{admin.tex} +\input{device-context.tex} \chapter{General Initialization And Device Operation}\label{sec:General Initialization And Device Operation} diff --git a/device-context.tex b/device-context.tex new file mode 100644 index 0000000..5611382 --- /dev/null +++ b/device-context.tex @@ -0,0 +1,142 @@ +\section{Device Context}\label{sec:Basic Facilities of a Virtio +Device / Device Context} + +The device context holds the information that a owner driver can +use to setup a member device and resume its operation. The device +context of a member device is read or written by the owner driver +using administration commands. + +\begin{lstlisting} +struct virtio_dev_ctx_field_tlv { + le32 type; + le32 reserved; + le64 length; + u8 value[]; +}; + +struct virtio_dev_ctx { + le32 field_count; + struct virtio_dev_ctx_field_tlv fields[]; }; + +\end{lstlisting}so this still doesn't work for nestedIn one use case of nesting, that we came across is: there is large host_VM which is hosting another guest_VMs. In such case, the owner PF is passthrough to this host_VM and currentproposed scheme continue to function for nesting as well for nested guest_VMs. The system admin can choose only passthrough some of the devices for nested guests, so passthrough the PF to L1 guest is not a good idea, because there can be many devices still work for the host or L1.Possible. One size does not fit all. What I expressed is most common scenarios that user care about.
don't block existing usecases, don't break the userspace, nested is common.
In second use case, where one want to bind only one member device to one VM, I think same plumbing can be extended to have another VF, to takethe role of migration device instead of owner device.I donât see a good way to passthrough and also do in-band migration withoutlot of device specific trap and emulation.I also donât know the cpu performance numbers with 3 levels of nested pagetable translation which to my understanding cannot be accelerated by the current cpu. host_PA->L1_QEMU_VA->L1_Guest_PA->L1_QEMU_VA->L2_Guest_PA and so on, there can be performance overhead, but can be done. So admin vq migration still don't work for nested, this is surely a blocker.In specific case of member devices are located at different nest level, it does not.
so you got the point, so this series should not be merged.
A peer VF? A management VF? still break the existing usecase. and how do you transfer ownership of L2 VF from PF to L1 VF?Why prevents you have a peer VF do the role of migration driver? Basically, what I am proposing is, connect two VFs to the L1 guest. One VF is migration driver, one VF is passthrough to L2 guest. And same scheme works.
page tables could be emulated, as showed to you before, just PA to VA, nested PA to nested VAOn the other hand, Many parts of the cpu subsystem such as PML, page tables do not have N level nesting support either.
They all work on top of emulation and pay the price for emulation when nesting is done. May be that is the first version for virtio too.
there are performance overhead, but can be done.
I frankly feel that nesting support requires industry level eco system support not just in virtio. Virtio attempting to focus on nested and having nearly same level performance as bare metal seems farfetched. Maybe I am wrong, as we have not seen such high perf nested env even with sw based device. What can be possibly done is, 1. What admin commands are useful from this series that can be useful for nesting? 2. What admin commands from current series needs extension for nesting? 3. What admin commands do not work at all for nesting, and hence, need to have new commands. If we can focus on those, maybe we can find common approach that cater to both commands.
virtio support nested now, dont let your admin vq LM break this.
Do you know how does it work for Intel x86_64? Can it do > 2 level of nested page tables? If no, what is the perf characteristicsto expect? of course that can be done, Page table is not a problem, there are soft mmu emulation and viommu, through performance overhead.Due to the performance overheads, I really doubt any cloud operator would use passthrough virtio device for any sensible workload. But you may know already how nested performance looks like that may be acceptable to users.
Many tenants run their nested cluster. Don't break this.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]