[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [virtio-comment] Re: [EXT] Re: [virtio-comment] Re: [PATCH] virtio-net: Add equal-sized receive buffers feature
>-----Original Message----- >From: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> >Sent: Wednesday, 27 November, 2019 15:51 >To: Vitaly Mireyno <vmireyno@marvell.com> >Cc: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>; virtio-comment@lists.oasis- >open.org >Subject: Re: [virtio-comment] Re: [EXT] Re: [virtio-comment] Re: [PATCH] >virtio-net: Add equal-sized receive buffers feature > >On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 05:27:31PM +0000, Vitaly Mireyno wrote: >> >> >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: virtio-comment@lists.oasis-open.org >> ><virtio-comment@lists.oasis- open.org> On Behalf Of Michael S. >> >Tsirkin >> >Sent: Sunday, 24 November, 2019 17:30 >> >To: Vitaly Mireyno <vmireyno@marvell.com> >> >Cc: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>; virtio-comment@lists.oasis- >> >open.org >> >Subject: [virtio-comment] Re: [EXT] Re: [virtio-comment] Re: [PATCH] >> >virtio- >> >net: Add equal-sized receive buffers feature >> > >> >On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 03:02:05PM +0000, Vitaly Mireyno wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >-----Original Message----- >> >> >From: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> >> >> >Sent: Wednesday, 20 November, 2019 15:23 >> >> >To: Vitaly Mireyno <vmireyno@marvell.com> >> >> >Cc: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>; virtio-comment@lists.oasis- >> >> >open.org >> >> >Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [virtio-comment] Re: [PATCH] virtio-net: >> >> >Add >> >> >equal- sized receive buffers feature >> >> > >> >> >On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 03:49:59PM +0000, Vitaly Mireyno wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >-----Original Message----- >> >> >> >From: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> >> >> >> >Sent: Monday, 11 November, 2019 17:05 >> >> >> >To: Vitaly Mireyno <vmireyno@marvell.com> >> >> >> >Cc: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>; >> >> >> >virtio-comment@lists.oasis- open.org >> >> >> >Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [virtio-comment] Re: [PATCH] virtio-net: >> >> >> >Add >> >> >> >equal- sized receive buffers feature >> >> >> > >> >> >> >On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 01:58:51PM +0000, Vitaly Mireyno wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >-----Original Message----- >> >> >> >> >From: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> >> >> >> >> >Sent: Sunday, 10 November, 2019 17:35 >> >> >> >> >To: Vitaly Mireyno <vmireyno@marvell.com> >> >> >> >> >Cc: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>; >> >> >> >> >virtio-comment@lists.oasis- open.org >> >> >> >> >Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [virtio-comment] Re: [PATCH] virtio-net: >> >> >> >> >Add >> >> >> >> >equal- sized receive buffers feature >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 02:13:14PM +0000, Vitaly Mireyno wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >-----Original Message----- >> >> >> >> >> >From: virtio-comment@lists.oasis-open.org >> >> >> >> >> ><virtio-comment@lists.oasis- open.org> On Behalf Of Michael >S. >> >> >> >> >> >Tsirkin >> >> >> >> >> >Sent: Tuesday, 5 November, 2019 20:52 >> >> >> >> >> >To: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> >> >> >> >> >> >Cc: Vitaly Mireyno <vmireyno@marvell.com>; >> >> >> >> >> >virtio-comment@lists.oasis- open.org >> >> >> >> >> >Subject: [EXT] Re: [virtio-comment] Re: [PATCH] virtio-net: >> >> >> >> >> >Add equal-sized receive buffers feature >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >External Email >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >--------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> >> >--- >> >> >> >> >> >--- >> >> >> >> >> >--- >> >> >> >> >> >--- >> >> >> >> >> >- On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 03:22:26PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 2019/11/1 äå12:09, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 10:46:55AM +0000, Vitaly >> >> >> >> >> >> > Mireyno >> >wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > > The feature is limited to receive buffers only. >> >> >> >> >> >> > > A driver decides on receive buffer length. The only >> >> >> >> >> >> > > limitation is that this >> >> >> >> >> >length has to be the same for all receive virtqueue buffers. >> >> >> >> >> >> > > The driver configures receive buffer length to the >> >> >> >> >> >> > > device during device >> >> >> >> >> >initialization, and the device reads it and may use it >> >> >> >> >> >for optimal >> >> >> >operation. >> >> >> >> >> >> > > No changes for transmit buffers. >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > -----Original Message----- >> >> >> >> >> >> > > From: virtio-comment@lists.oasis-open.org >> >> >> >> >> >> > > <virtio-comment@lists.oasis-open.org> On Behalf Of >> >> >> >> >> >> > > Jason Wang >> >> >> >> >> >> > > Sent: Thursday, 31 October, 2019 12:15 >> >> >> >> >> >> > > To: Vitaly Mireyno <vmireyno@marvell.com>; >> >> >> >> >> >> > > virtio-comment@lists.oasis-open.org >> >> >> >> >> >> > > Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > Subject: [virtio-comment] Re: [PATCH] virtio-net: >> >> >> >> >> >> > > Add equal-sized receive buffers feature >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > On 2019/10/31 äå5:23, Vitaly Mireyno wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > Some devices benefit from working with receive >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > buffers of a >> >> >> >> >> >predefined constant length. >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > Add a feature for drivers that allocate >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > equal-sized receive buffers, and >> >> >> >> >> >devices that benefit from predefined receive buffers length. >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > Signed-off-by: Vitaly Mireyno >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > <vmireyno@marvell.com> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > --- >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > content.tex | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 2 >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > deletions(-) >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > Is there any other networking device that has this >feature? >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > diff --git a/content.tex b/content.tex index >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > b1ea9b9..c9e67c8 >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > 100644 >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > --- a/content.tex >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > +++ b/content.tex >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > @@ -2811,6 +2811,10 @@ \subsection{Feature >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > bits}\label{sec:Device >> >> >> >> >> >Types / Network Device / Feature bits >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > \item[VIRTIO_NET_F_CTRL_MAC_ADDR(23)] Set >MAC >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > address >> >> >> >> >> >through control >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > channel. >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > +\item[VIRTIO_NET_F_CONST_RXBUF_LEN(58)] Driver >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > +allocates all >> >> >> >> >> >receive buffers >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > + of the same constant length. Device benefits >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > + from working >> >> >> >with >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > + receive buffers of equal length. >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > + >> >> >> >> >> >> > Problem is, I don't think linux will use this for >> >> >> >> >> >> > skbs since it breaks buffer accounting. This is >> >> >> >> >> >> > because it is important to make skbs as small as you >> >> >> >> >> >> > can. So even if you see "device would >> >> >> >benefit" >> >> >> >> >> >> > there is no way to balance this with the benefit to linux. >> >> >> >> >> >> > How do you know which benefit is bigger? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I guess the idea is e.g for Linux driver, it can refuse this >feature. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >Okay. What uses it? >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > You also never explained how does device benefit. My >> >> >> >> >> >> > guess is this allows device to calculate the # of >> >> >> >> >> >> > descriptors to fetch that are needed for a packet. Right? >> >> >> >> >> >> > Assuming this, I think a rough estimate should be enough. >> >> >> >> >> >> > If device fetches too much it can discard extra, if >> >> >> >> >> >> > it does not fetch enough it can fetch extra. >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > Let us not forget that express packets are 256 bytes >> >> >> >> >> >> > so up to >> >> >> >> >> >> > 16 descriptors fit in a packet, there is no benefit >> >> >> >> >> >> > most of the time in knowing whether e.g. 1 or 2 >> >> >> >> >> >> > descriptors are >> >needed. >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > Let us not forget these are buffers, not descriptors. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I guess maybe the initial motivation is constant >> >> >> >> >> >> descriptor >> >length. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >That conflicts with requirement framing is up to driver. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> I was using the wrong terminology. The feature is about >> >> >> >> >> constant >> >> >> >> >*descriptor* length. In other words, the value that driver >> >> >> >> >puts in Packed Virtqueue "Element Length" field (or 'len' >> >> >> >> >field in the >> >> >'pvirtq_desc' >> >> >> >struct). >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >OK so this conflicts with "2.6.4 Message Framing" which >> >> >> >> >requires that drivers can split buffers into as many >> >> >> >> >descriptors as >> >they like. >> >> >> >> >Right? >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> Does it make more sense now, or you still see an issue >> >> >> >> >> with Linux >> >> >driver? >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >I think there's an issue with the flexible framing >> >> >> >> >requirements and there's an issue with Linux driver. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> The motivation is to allow the device to calculate the >> >> >> >> >> exact number of >> >> >> >> >descriptors to consume, before fetching the descriptors. >> >> >> >> >This is beneficial for devices for which overconsuming or >> >> >> >> >underconsuming descriptors come at a high cost. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >So I guess we can agree getting the # of descriptors >> >> >> >> >*exactly* right isn't all that important. Right? My question >> >> >> >> >is how does the driver balance the device versus Linux needs? >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >One idea is if we assume this is best effort, does not have >> >> >> >> >to be exact, then how about just having the device assume >> >> >> >> >descriptor sizes stay more or less constant and use that to >> >> >> >> >estimate the amount? If it under/over estimates, things just >> >> >> >> >go a bit >> >slower. >> >> >> >> >This way driver can adjust the sizes and device will react >> >> >> >> >automatically, with time. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I see that "2.6.4 Message Framing" allows a full flexibility >> >> >> >> of descriptor lengths, and I presume it's applicable to >> >> >> >> Packet Virtqueues as well, though defined under Split Virtqueues >section. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >That's a good point. Probably makes sense to move it out to a >> >> >> >common section, right? >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> The example >> >> >> >> talks about transmit virtqueue, and it makes perfect sense. >> >> >> >> However, wouldn't a typical driver place equal-sized >> >> >> >> *receive* descriptors >> >> >> >anyway? So if a device can benefit from it, the driver might as >> >> >> >well negotiate this new feature. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Having buffer size jump around wildly doesn't seem too useful, I >agree. >> >> >> >OTOH being able to adjust it gradually has been in the past >> >> >> >demontrated to help performance measureably. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> This could be especially relevant for devices, for which >> >> >> >> adjusting the number >> >> >> >of used descriptors is impractical after descriptors have >> >> >> >already been >> >> >fetched. >> >> >> >> I agree that if this requirement conflicts with specific >> >> >> >> driver needs, it will not >> >> >> >be negotiated, and the device will either underperform in >> >> >> >certain scenarios, or will not come up at all. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Right so that makes it a challenge. Device says it prefers >> >> >> >fixed buffers. Is that preference more or less important than >> >> >> >ability to efficiently support workloads such as TCP small queues? >> >> >> >Driver has no idea and I suspect neither does the device. >> >> >> >So I don't see how will a Linux driver know that it should >> >> >> >enable this, neither how will device know it's okay to just refuse >features_ok. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >On the other hand, current drivers already have logic that >> >> >> >tries to change buffer sizes in a smooth way. So simply >> >> >> >caching the last buffer size and assuming all the others will >> >> >> >be exactly the same will go a long way towards limiting how >> >> >> >much does device need to >> >fetch. >> >> >> >This does imply extra logic on the device to recover if things >> >> >> >change and the first read did not fetch enough buffers, but >> >> >> >then it would be required anyway if as you say above the >> >> >> >failure is not >> >catastrophic. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >The feature thus only seems useful for small, >> >> >> >feature-restrained devices >> >> >> >- which are prepared to sacrifice some performance to cut >> >> >> >costs, and which can't recover at all. Is this what you are trying to do? >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> The intention is to enable devices with this specific limitation >> >> >> to offer virtio offload. The feature can be redefined such that >> >> >> it would only be offered by devices that are unable to handle >> >> >> dynamically changing descriptor lengths. How does that sound? >> >> > >> >> >So it makes more sense when mergeable buffers are disabled (since >> >> >then buffers are practically all same size). >> >> > >> >> >> >> Actually, mergeable buffers are not a problem. They could be >> >> enabled, as long as each descriptor is the same length. So >> >> implementations that prefer optimizing memory utilization over >> >> jumbo frame performance can negotiate VIRTIO_NET_F_MRG_RXBUF >and allocate smaller buffers. >> > >> >So my point was, without VIRTIO_NET_F_MRG_RXBUF, all buffers are >same >> >length anyway. So if we are talking about cheap simple hardware, I >> >guess it can just not have VIRTIO_NET_F_MRG_RXBUF and be done with >it? >> >If device does care about memory utilization then I think it needs to >> >give driver the flexibility it needs/uses. >> >No? >> > >> >> It's not a matter of device complexity, but a HW architecture, which could be >complex, but have this specific limitation. > >So - don't do it then? > >> I see at least two reasons to support and negotiate >VIRTIO_NET_F_MRG_RXBUF, while keeping equal-sized descriptor limitation: >> * GRO > >You mean LRO? > >> * With jumbo packets, if the throughput is capped by the port bandwidth, >and not by the device/driver per-packet performance, it makes sense to >optimize memory utilization by allocating small buffers, without sacrificing >throughput performance. > >So we are back to square one, if driver cares about memory utilization with 1K >packets vs 9K buffers, why not with 100byte packets vs 1K buffers? Looks like >exactly the same tradeoff. > > >> >> >Again I can see how we might want to disallow crazy setups with e.g. >> >1 byte per buffer. That's just abuse, no guest does that anyway. So >> >asking e.g. for a minimal buffer size sounds very reasonable. But an >> >option that disables functionality that a popular guest uses needs a >> >lot of documentation to help device writers figure out whether they >> >want that option or not, and I'd worry that even with documentation will >be misunderstood even if we write it. >> >When do you enable this? >> >When you don't care about performance? When you don't care about >Linux? >> > >> >> I understand that there are guest-side optimizations that require flexibility >in descriptors length. I can propose the following simple logic: >> Device - advertise "equal-sized descriptor" feature only if the device is >absolutely unable to operate otherwise. The device will not set FEATURES_OK >unless the driver negotiates this feature. >> Driver - if device advertises "equal-sized descriptor" feature - if possible, >give up on the flexible descriptors length optimizations. If not - give up on the >device. > >Yes, that's possible. Looks like a rather limited feature, and i'd rather we >focused on something more widely applicable, but with enough disclamers >that devices SHOULD NOT set this bit we can maybe do that. > I agree that this feature is more of a limitation declaration, rather than an enhancement, but let me emphasize that its only purpose is to make more *existing* HW devices be virtio compatible. This feature will allow such HW devices to offer virtio offload with VIRTIO_NET_F_MRG_RXBUF capability for GRO/LRO offload. New device designs should definitely avoid employing this feature. > >> >> >> > >> >> >With that in mind, I have an idea: scsi and block already have max sg >field. >> >> >How about we add a writeable max sg field, maybe even make it >> >> >programmable per vq? >> >> > >> >> >Thus driver tells device what is it's max s/g value for rx. Worst >> >> >case device fetches a bit more than it needs. Discarding extra >> >> >shouldn't be expensive. This looks like it will help even smart >> >> >devices. What >> >do you think? >> >> > >> >> >This nicely avoids conflicting with the flexible framing requirement. >> >> > >> >> >> >> My intention was to avoid any descriptor length variations, for >> >> devices that unable fetching or discarding extra descriptors. (If >> >> in the pipelined HW processing the decision on number of >> >> descriptors is made in the early stage, and it cannot be undone in a later >stage). >> > >> >Frankly discarding unused descriptors looks to me like something that >> >shouldn't have a high cost in the hardware. I can see how trying to >> >predict descriptor length, and fetching extra if not enough was >> >fetched can have a high cost, so to me extensions to remove the >> >guesswork from the device have value. However a lot of effort went >> >into trying to reduce e.g. number of pci express packets needed to fetch >descriptors. >> >Each packet fetches 256 bytes anyway, does it not? Not having an >> >ability to use that information seems like an obvious waste, and that >> >means ability to keep some fetched descriptors around even if they >> >are not used for a given packet. Again just my $.02. >> > >> >> In packed virtqueue, discarding unused descriptors (and buffers associated >with them) can indeed be easy, but reusing them for the next packet is >complicated (or impossible). >> I agree that descriptors are being (pre)fetched with the maximum efficiency >(in terms of PCIe bandwidth), and cached in the device. But the decision to >fetch is being made according to the number of left cached-in descriptors and >the expected number of descriptors that will be used by the packet. >> If the expected number of descriptors is larger than the actual one, the next >fetch decision will be taken too early, and there will be no way to reuse excess >cached descriptors, and they will have to be discarded. > >> Even if it's possible to skip descriptors in the packed virtqueue (is it?), it's >surely inefficient. > >OK I think I understand what you are doing. Device is getting buffers 1,2,3 for >packet 1, it is meanwhile receiving packet >2 and decides to get buffers 4,5 for packet 2. >At this point it finally gets buffers 1-3 and figures out that buffers 3 was not >needed, but possibly it already started writing packet 2 into buffers 4. >What to do about buffers 3 now? > >Is above a good example? > >If yes then it looks like you are unaware that Descriptors can be used out of >order, with split or packed ring, with no issues. Looks like exactly what you >need to address this issue? >So device will simply proceed with marking buffers 1,2,4,5 as used, and store >buffers 3 in some kind of internal memory and use it for the next packet. > >This is exactly the kind of thing out of order was designed for. > >Does this answer the question? > The example is good, and the suggested solution is clear. However if we're talking about HW device that is designed to process packets/buffers in order, this solution could not be applicable. >> >> >> >> >> Defining max s/g sounds like an interesting feature by itself. >> > >> >But assuming we have max RX s/g, I guess hardware can set max s/g = 1? >> >Then since with !VIRTIO_NET_F_MRG_RXBUF all buffers are forced to be >> >same length. >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Could you specify what issue do you see with the Linux driver? >> >> >> > >> >> >> >See logic around struct ewma. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >The first relevant commit is I guess commit >> >> >> >ab7db91705e95ed1bba1304388936fccfa58c992 >> >> >> > virtio-net: auto-tune mergeable rx buffer size for improved >> >> >> >performance >> >> >> > >> >> >> >this claims a gain of about 10% with large packets which isn't >> >> >> >earth shattering but also not something we can ignore completely. >> >> >> >And I suspect it can be bigger with smaller packets. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > So device does not really know the exact # of descriptors: >> >> >> >> >> >> > current drivers do 1 descriptor per buffer but >> >> >> >> >> >> > nothing prevents more. >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > Thoughts? >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > \item[VIRTIO_NET_F_RSC_EXT(61)] Device can >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > process duplicated >> >> >> >> >> >ACKs >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > and report number of coalesced segments >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > and duplicated ACKs @@ -2854,8 +2858,8 @@ >> >> >> >\subsubsection{Legacy Interface: >> >> >> >> >> >Feature bits}\label{sec:Device Types / Network >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > \subsection{Device configuration >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > layout}\label{sec:Device Types / >> >> >> >> >> >Network Device / Device configuration layout} >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > \label{sec:Device Types / Block Device / >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > Feature bits / Device configuration layout} >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > -Three driver-read-only configuration fields are >currently defined. >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > The \field{mac} address field -always exists >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > (though is only valid if VIRTIO_NET_F_MAC is >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > set), and >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > +The driver-read-only \field{mac} address field >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > +always exists (though is only valid if >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > +VIRTIO_NET_F_MAC is set), and >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > \field{status} only exists if VIRTIO_NET_F_STATUS is >set. >> >> >Two >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > read-only bits (for the driver) are currently >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > defined for the status >> >> >> >> >> >field: >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > VIRTIO_NET_S_LINK_UP and >> >VIRTIO_NET_S_ANNOUNCE. >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > @@ -2875,12 +2879,17 @@ \subsection{Device >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > configuration >> >> >> >> >> >layout}\label{sec:Device Types / Network Device >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set. This field specifies >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > the maximum MTU for >> >> >> >> >> >the driver to >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > use. >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > +The device-read-only field \field{rx_buf_len} >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > +only exists if >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > Should be driver-read-only. >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > +VIRTIO_NET_F_CONST_RXBUF_LEN is negotiated. >This >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > +field specifies the receive buffers length. >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > + >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > \begin{lstlisting} >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > struct virtio_net_config { >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > u8 mac[6]; >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > le16 status; >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > le16 max_virtqueue_pairs; >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > le16 mtu; >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > + le32 rx_buf_len; >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > }; >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > \end{lstlisting} @@ -2933,6 +2942,13 @@ >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > \subsection{Device configuration >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > layout}\label{sec:Device Types / Network >> >Device >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > A driver SHOULD negotiate the >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > VIRTIO_NET_F_STANDBY feature if >> >> >> >> >> >the device offers it. >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > +A driver SHOULD accept the >> >> >> >VIRTIO_NET_F_CONST_RXBUF_LEN >> >> >> >> >> >feature if offered. >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > + >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > +If VIRTIO_NET_F_CONST_RXBUF_LEN feature has >been >> >> >> >> >negotiated, >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > +the driver MUST set \field{rx_buf_len}. >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > I think it's device that set the field? >> >> >> >> >> >> > Makes more sense for the driver, but if you want this set >e.g. >> >> >> >> >> >> > before buffers are added, you must say so. >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > + >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > +A driver MUST NOT modify \field{rx_buf_len} once >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > +it has been >> >> >> >> >set. >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > + >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > This seems very unflexible. I can see how e.g. XDP >> >> >> >> >> >> > would benefit from big buffers while skbs benefit >> >> >> >> >> >> > from small >> >buffers. >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > This calls for ability to change this. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes, but it requires non trivial cleanups for the old >> >> >> >> >> >> length and place them with new ones. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >Let's see: >> >> >> >> >> >1 - making buffer smaller: just update config space, >> >> >> >> >> > then make new buffers smaller >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >2 - making buffers bigger: add larger buffers, >> >> >> >> >> > once all small ones are consumed update config space >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >2 is tricky I agree. Thoughts? >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> Agree. It's doable, provided that the driver will follow >> >> >> >> >> the update >> >> >> >> >procedure. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > \subsubsection{Legacy Interface: Device >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > configuration >> >> >> >> >> >layout}\label{sec:Device Types / Network Device / Device >> >> >> >> >> >configuration layout / Legacy Interface: Device >> >> >> >> >> >configuration layout} >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > \label{sec:Device Types / Block Device / >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > Feature bits / Device >> >> >> >> >> >configuration layout / Legacy Interface: Device >> >> >> >> >> >configuration layout} >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > When using the legacy interface, transitional >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > devices and drivers @@ >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > -3241,6 +3257,11 @@ \subsubsection{Setting Up >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > Receive >> >> >> >> >> >Buffers}\label{sec:Device Types / Network Devi >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > If VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ is negotiated, each of >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > receiveq1\ldots >> >> >> >> >> >receiveqN >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > that will be used SHOULD be populated with >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > receive >> >> >buffers. >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > +If VIRTIO_NET_F_CONST_RXBUF_LEN feature has >been >> >> >> >> >negotiated, >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > +the driver MUST initialize all receive virtqueue >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > +descriptors \field{len} field with the value >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > +configured in \field{rx_buf_len} device >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > +configuration field, and allocate receive >> >> >> >> >> >buffers accordingly. >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > + >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > \devicenormative{\paragraph}{Setting Up >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > Receive Buffers}{Device Types / Network Device / >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > Device Operation / Setting Up Receive Buffers} >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > The device MUST set \field{num_buffers} to the >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > number of descriptors used to @@ -3396,6 +3417,10 >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > @@ >> >> >> >> >> >\subsubsection{Processing of Incoming >> >> >> >> >> >Packets}\label{sec:Device Types / Network >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > checksum (in case of multiple encapsulated >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > protocols, one >> >> >> >level >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > of checksums is validated). >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > +If VIRTIO_NET_F_CONST_RXBUF_LEN has been >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > +negotiated, >> >> >> >the >> >> >> >> >> >device >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > +MAY use \field{rx_buf_len} as a buffer length >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > +(instead of reading it from virtqueue descriptor >> >\field{len} field). >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > Is this safe? What if driver submit a small buffer, >> >> >> >> >> >> > > then device can read >> >> >> >> >> >more than what is allowed? >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > Thanks >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > + >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > \drivernormative{\paragraph}{Processing of Incoming >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > Packets}{Device Types / Network Device / >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > Device Operation >> >> >/ >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > Processing of Incoming Packets} >> > >> > >> >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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- >> >3A__lists.oasis-2Dopen.org_archives_virtio- >> >>2Dcomment_&d=DwIFaQ&c=nKjWec2b6R0mOyPaz7xtfQ&r=lDHJ2FW52oJ3l >q >> >qsArgFRdcevq01tbLQAw4A_NO7xgI&m=gIIx9_eEGj-aDaM6Z- >> >42yWtI9MnZcqZ2Gw7KCN7EgCg&s=- >> >JICLquqUnNye7tilUS67AFv7opngsKEl5L75acB64U&e= >> >Feedback License: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- >> >3A__www.oasis-2Dopen.org_who_ipr_feedback- >> >>5Flicense.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=nKjWec2b6R0mOyPaz7xtfQ&r=lDHJ2FW52oJ3lq >q >> >sArgFRdcevq01tbLQAw4A_NO7xgI&m=gIIx9_eEGj-aDaM6Z- >> >>42yWtI9MnZcqZ2Gw7KCN7EgCg&s=4e2kWmSdPAtGMXBTHwfgNE_KOZdDU >R >> >Wsji73HWdVF3A&e= >> >List Guidelines: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- >> >3A__www.oasis-2Dopen.org_policies-2Dguidelines_mailing- >> >>2Dlists&d=DwIFaQ&c=nKjWec2b6R0mOyPaz7xtfQ&r=lDHJ2FW52oJ3lqqsArgF >R >> >dcevq01tbLQAw4A_NO7xgI&m=gIIx9_eEGj-aDaM6Z- >> >42yWtI9MnZcqZ2Gw7KCN7EgCg&s=i-dQn5G- >> >auoFtCxN8Y2PN8UccM1ezgcrsT2A8T1H8wE&e= >> >Committee: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- >> >3A__www.oasis- >> >>2Dopen.org_committees_virtio_&d=DwIFaQ&c=nKjWec2b6R0mOyPaz7xtfQ >& >> >r=lDHJ2FW52oJ3lqqsArgFRdcevq01tbLQAw4A_NO7xgI&m=gIIx9_eEGj- >> >aDaM6Z-42yWtI9MnZcqZ2Gw7KCN7EgCg&s=kcv-jA-_-JC3v64-_r5iP- >> >XQ9rhyaeOKvrHJNHwZrLc&e= >> >Join OASIS: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- >> >3A__www.oasis- >> >>2Dopen.org_join_&d=DwIFaQ&c=nKjWec2b6R0mOyPaz7xtfQ&r=lDHJ2FW52 >o >> >J3lqqsArgFRdcevq01tbLQAw4A_NO7xgI&m=gIIx9_eEGj-aDaM6Z- >> >>42yWtI9MnZcqZ2Gw7KCN7EgCg&s=cKbLeI_5Fu9G7aybE5u51yISB0eRer6BvC >xr >> >wgd5HS4&e= >>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]