[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [virtio-comment] RE: [PATCH v3 2/2] content: Support enabling virtqueue after DRIVER_OK stage
On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 12:25:23PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Tue, Oct 17 2023, Parav Pandit <parav@nvidia.com> wrote: > > >> From: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> > >> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 5:55 PM > >> > >> On Mon, Oct 02 2023, Parav Pandit <parav@nvidia.com> wrote: > >> > @@ -440,6 +440,38 @@ \subsubsection{Virtqueue > >> > Re-enable}\label{sec:Basic Facilities of a Virtio Devic as during > >> > initial virtqueue discovery, but optionally with different parameters. > >> > > >> > +\subsection{Dynamic Virtqueues}\label{sec:Basic Facilities of a > >> > +Virtio Device / Virtqueues / Dynamic Virtqueues} > >> > + > >> > +When VIRTIO_F_RING_DYNAMIC is not negotiated, the driver enables the > >> > +virtqueues during the device initialization sequence, i.e. after the > >> > +device sets the FEATURES_OK status bit and before the driver setting the > >> DRIVER_OK status bit. > >> > >> _Or_ if a virtqueue has been reset and the driver wants to re-enable it, right? > >> > > Well no. Because above text is for "enablement", and not re-enablement. > > If the driver want to reset and re-enable, it must be enabled in first place before setting driver_ok. > > VQ not enabled before driver ok, cannot be reset, and hence cannot be re-enabled. > > > > So I think above text is fine because it says about "enables" and not "re-enables". > > > >> > + > >> > +When VIRTIO_F_RING_DYNAMIC is negotiated, the driver can avoid > >> > +enabling the virtqueues before setting the DRIVER_OK status bit; the > >> > +driver can enable the specific virtqueues after the driver has set the > >> DRIVER_OK status bit. > >> > >> "the driver is not required to enable every virtqueue it wants to use before > >> setting the DRIVER_OK status bit; it can choose to enable a virtqueue even after > >> it has set the DRIVER_OK status bit." > >> > > Sounds good. Will change it. > > > >> > +The virtqueue enable mechanism is transport specific. > >> > >> Would that be the same mechanism as for re-enabling a queue after a queue > >> reset? I guess I'm missing the relationship here... > >> > > Yes, it is same. > > There is no change in enabling/re-enabling the virtqueue after/before DRIVER_OK with/without _dynamic bit. > > So no extra text added here. > > This is not really clear to me just from this text, especially if you > just wrote above that enabling or re-enabling is something > different... my understanding would be: > > - if neither dynamic vqs nor queue reset are supported or negotiated, > the only way to enable a vq is before DRIVER_OK, during setup > - both of these features rely on the transport supporting enabling > individual queues (either a queue that has not been enabled before, or > a queue that has been reset) > - the transport is supposed to use the same mechanism for either > > Did I get it right? If so, I think we should make it a bit more clear. > > (...) > > >> > +When VIRTIO_F_RING_DYNAMIC is not negotiated, the driver MUST enable > >> > +the required number of virtqueues before setting the DRIVER_OK status bit. > >> > >> What does "required" mean here? It just chooses to enable the queues it wants > >> to use, right? > > Right. > > Required meaning, whatever number of queues that driver choose to enable, those must be enabled before driver_ok. > > So it is "required by the driver". > > Would that be ok? > > I'd write it as "the driver MUST enable any virtqueue it plans to use" > or something like that. > > (...) It would have to be SHOULD - we can't add new MUST requirements not contingent on a feature bit, we can give recommendation based on existing installed base. > >> We currently have a device normative statement: > >> > >> "The device MUST NOT consume buffers or send any used buffer notifications to > >> the driver before DRIVER_OK." > >> > >> I guess we need to extend that to not doing that for not-yet-enabled queues in > >> the dynamic virtqueue case? There's a (transport-specific) point in time when > >> the driver tells the device that the queue is ready, right? > > > > We donât need extend this text because device does not know anything about the disabled queue, so it cannot consume any buffer from it anyway. > > Above line only applied to the enabled virtqueue. > > My point is: DRIVER_OK signals that the driver is done with its setup > and the device may start to interact with the queue. Depending on the > mechanism the transport uses for enabling the queue, it may "know" about > the queue before the driver is ready -- it might need to wait until the > driver has completed enabling of the queue. Not sure if that is worth > spelling out.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]