[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [virtio-comment] [PATCH v4] virtio-vsock: add max payload size config field
On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 02:59:07PM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote: > On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 11:23:31 +0300 > Laura Loghin <lauralg@amazon.com> wrote: > > > On 6/23/22 19:22, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 06:36:50PM +0300, Laura Loghin wrote: > > >> On 6/16/22 19:40, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > >> > > >> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 01:57:34PM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote: > > >> > > >> On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 13:40:38 +0300 > > >> Laura Loghin<lauralg@amazon.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> @@ -57,6 +62,25 @@ \subsection{Device configuration layout}\label{sec:Device Types / Socket Device > > >> \hline > > >> \end{tabular} > > >> > > >> +The following driver-read-only field, \field{data_max_size} only exists if > > >> +VIRTIO_VSOCK_F_SIZE_MAX is set. This field specifies the maximum packet payload > > >> +size for the driver to use. > > >> + > > >> +\devicenormative{\subsubsection}{Device configuration layout}{Device Types / Socket Device / Device configuration layout} > > >> + > > >> +The device MUST NOT change the value exposed through \field{data_max_size}. > > >> + > > >> +\drivernormative{\subsubsection}{Device configuration layout}{Device Types / Socket Device / Device configuration layout} > > >> + > > >> +A driver SHOULD negotiate VIRTIO_VSOCK_F_SIZE_MAX if the device offers it. > > >> + > > >> +If the driver negotiates VIRTIO_VSOCK_F_SIZE_MAX, the receive buffers it > > >> +supplies for a packet MUST have a total size that doesn't exceed the size > > >> +\field{data_max_size} (plus header length). > > >> + > > >> +If the driver negotiates VIRTIO_VSOCK_F_SIZE_MAX, it MUST NOT transmit packets > > >> +of size exceeding the value of \field{data_max_size} (plus header length). > > >> + > > >> > > >> Hi and sorry for being late to the party! > > >> > > >> I believe I do understand why do we want to put a restriction on the > > >> size of the transmitted packets, but I would appreciate if you could > > >> explain to me why do we want to limit the receive buffer size. > > >> > > >> Also I find the wording regarding a little bit ambiguous because > > >> in a networking context it also makes sense to talk about the size of the > > >> receive buffer. I guess hear we are talking about a single virtio buffer > > >> (a descriptor chain described potentially non-continuous (or compact in > > >> the mathematical sense of the word) which is composed from as many > > >> continuous chunks of memory as many descriptors are contained within the > > >> descriptor chain). If we are indeed talking about a single virtio buffer, > > >> I don't understand the plural. If not, I'm not sure what are we talking > > >> about. > > >> > > >> I think I agree here, I don't understand the mix of "buffers" and "a > > >> packet" either. > > >> > > >> The way I was understanding that while reading the spec is that a buffer > > >> is corresponding to one descriptor, > > > what gave this impression? buffers can use any number of descriptors. > > > > > There are sections in the spec that make you think of a buffer as > > corresponding to a descriptor chain, and others that don't, for example: > > 2.6.5ÂÂÂ The Virtqueue Descriptor Table: Each descriptor describes a > > buffer which is read-only for the device (âdevice-readableâ) or > > write-only for the device (âdevice-writableâ), but a chain of descriptors > > can contain both device-readable and device-writable buffers. > > I remember while reading the spec I was always confused about the buffer > > - descriptor (chain) relation, but in the end concluded that the buffer > > is the memory region to which a single descriptor is pointing to (probably > > also because when you think of a buffer you would at first assume it is > > contiguous in memory). well we have wording like Device reports the number of bytes it has written to memory for each buffer it uses. This is referred to as ``used length''. > I think in the distant past I have pointed out that the usage of the word > buffer in the virtio spec is somewhat confusing. But I never took the > time to make a patch which attempts to set it strait. > > IMHO eve if we were to use "buffer" consistently in a sense that, it is > a portion of the RAM which may or may not be continuous in the address > space used by virtio (guest physical or DMA depending on ...) where > chained descriptors describe continuous pieces of the same, we would > still have the problem, that in the normal CS world AFAIK a buffer is > usually a continuous piece of memory used for a certain purpose. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_buffer > > Well actually our buffers are continuous in a sense that each descriptor > chain defines and has an address space of its own. In a sense that we > can talk about the N-th byte of the L long buffer (N < L), but that > the difference between addresses of the 0-th and the N-th byte of an > virtio buffer described by a descriptor chain in DMA/guest physical > address space isn't guaranteed to be N. > > One solution would be to define the terms: > virtqueue buffer: a portion of a RAM that is composed by one or more > primitive buffers and a descriptor chain such that at least one > descriptor in the chain is pointed to each primitive buffer > primitive buffer: a byte array in RAM which is continuous in > the address space used by the spec > and use this terms consistently. That is never use buffer without > a qualifier. I would be inclined to avoid saying primitive buffer. saying virtqueue buffer is ok if a bit verbose. Let's start by locating places in spec which say buffer when they mean descriptor though. > > BTW I don't remember if the our primitive buffers are allowed to cross > page boundaries. Spec doesn't say they shouldn't. > > This doesn't seem to be the right understanding, so I will update the > > patch. > > > > >> so a packet will correspond to > > >> multiple buffers (like for example in Linux one buffer for the packet > > >> header and one buffer for the payload). I wanted to limit the memory > > >> allocated by the driver for RX buffers and TX buffers, so that's why I > > >> used 'buffers' for RX. Does it make sense or did I misunderstand what > > >> was causing the confusion here? > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> Laura > > > > > > As above, a buffer can consist of many descriptors. See e.g. > > > Descriptor Chaining. > > > I think there are places in spec when say "descriptor" and we should > > > fix them to say one or more descriptors. > > > > It would be great if we could fix the spec, so that the relation between > > a descriptor and a buffer becomes more clear and doesn't leave room for > > interpretations. > > +1 > > Regards, > Halil > > > > > > > Laura > > > > >> I voted "no" on the ballot, though if others feel we should apply as > > >> is and fix up later, that is not too bad. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Also, do we have some sort of packets may not cross virtio buffer > > >> boundaries, or even a single packet per single viritio buffer rule for > > >> vsock. I did a quick search and could not find any. Did I overlook > > >> something? Should we spell this out? > > >> > > >> @Michael, Conny: What do you think? > > >> > > >> Regards, > > >> Halil > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Amazon Development Center (Romania) S.R.L. registered office: 27A Sf. Lazar > > >> Street, UBC5, floor 2, Iasi, Iasi County, 700045, Romania. Registered in > > >> Romania. Registration number J22/2621/2005. > > >> > > > > > > > > Amazon Development Center (Romania) S.R.L. registered office: 27A Sf. Lazar Street, UBC5, floor 2, Iasi, Iasi County, 700045, Romania. Registered in Romania. Registration number J22/2621/2005.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]