Re: [virtio-comment] Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] shared memory: Define shared memory regions

[Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>]

On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 15:11:34 +0000
"Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com> wrote:

> * Cornelia Huck (cohuck@redhat.com) wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 11:54:31 +0000
> > "Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git)" <dgilbert@redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>
> > > 
> > > Define the requirements and idea behind shared memory regions.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilbert@redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > >  content.tex    |  2 ++
> > >  shared-mem.tex | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  2 files changed, 35 insertions(+)
> > >  create mode 100644 shared-mem.tex
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/content.tex b/content.tex
> > > index 836ee52..3dd504c 100644
> > > --- a/content.tex
> > > +++ b/content.tex
> > > @@ -371,6 +371,8 @@ making any more buffers available. When VIRTIO_F_NOTIFICATION_DATA
> > >  has been negotiated, these notifications would then have
> > >  identical \field{next_off} and \field{next_wrap} values.
> > >  
> > > +\input{shared-mem.tex}
> > > +
> > >  \chapter{General Initialization And Device Operation}\label{sec:General Initialization And Device Operation}
> > >  
> > >  We start with an overview of device initialization, then expand on the
> > > diff --git a/shared-mem.tex b/shared-mem.tex
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 0000000..85b0c55
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/shared-mem.tex
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
> > > +\section{Shared Memory Regions}\label{sec:Basic Facilities of a Virtio Device / Shared Memory Regions}
> > > +
> > > +Shared memory regions are an additional facility
> > > +available to devices that need a region of memory that's
> > > +continuously shared between the host and the guest, rather
> > > +than passed between them in the way virtqueue elements are.
> > > +
> > > +Example uses include shared caches and version pools for versioned
> > > +data structures.
> > > +
> > > +The region is chosen by the host and presented to the guest, as
> > > +such it is useful in situations where the memory is accessed on
> > > +the host by other libraries that can't safely access guest RAM.
> > 
> > This explanation looks good to me.
> > 
> > > +
> > > +Shared memory regions MUST NOT be used to control the operation
> > > +of the device, nor to stream data; those should still be performed
> > > +using virtqueues.
> > 
> > The 'MUST NOT' makes it look like a normative statement; however, this
> > is more like design advice?
> 
> Hmm I'm not sure - the intention of this line is to try and stop people
> using it as a hack to avoid standardising protocol for no good reason.
> 

I had the same thoughts as Stefan but he was faster. I think his concern
regarding the formalism -- mine is for sure.

IMHO you making it a normative statement is a good idea. 

> > > +
> > > +A device may have multiple shared memory regions associated with
> > > +it.  Each region has a \field{shmid} to identify it, the meaning
> > > +of which is device-specific.
> > > +
> > > +Enumeration and location of shared memory regions is performed
> > > +using a transport-specific data structure and mechanism.
> > > +
> > > +Memory consistency rules vary depending on the region and the
> > > +device.  Devices MUST define the required behaviour for each
> > > +region.
> > 
> > Same here.
> 
> OK, so should I reword this?
> 

Same here. 

> > > +
> > > +The guest physical address and the host virtual address MUST NOT
> > > +be used to identify structures within the memory regions; all
> > > +addressing MUST be relative to the start of a particular region.
> > > +
> > 
> > For that high-level overview, I'm not sure if any normative statements
> > are needed/wanted, or whether those should be confined to the individual
> > transport or device type definitions...
> 
> I think this one is stronger than the previous two; if people start
> passing GPA/HVA in the underlying structures things are going to get
> messy.
>

And here. If it is supposed to be normative (and I think it is) it
should be made formally look like a normative statement. How to do it
exactly, no idea :(.

Regards,
Halil

 
> Dave
> 
> > The text on its own looks good to me.
> > 
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org
> > 
> --
> Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilbert@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
> 
> This publicly archived list offers a means to provide input to the
> OASIS Virtual I/O Device (VIRTIO) TC.
> 
> In order to verify user consent to the Feedback License terms and
> to minimize spam in the list archive, subscription is required
> before posting.
> 
> Subscribe: virtio-comment-subscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> Unsubscribe: virtio-comment-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> List help: virtio-comment-help@lists.oasis-open.org
> List archive: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/virtio-comment/
> Feedback License: https://www.oasis-open.org/who/ipr/feedback_license.pdf
> List Guidelines: https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/mailing-lists
> Committee: https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/virtio/
> Join OASIS: https://www.oasis-open.org/join/
>