Re: [Qemu-devel] rfc: vhost user enhancements for vm2vm communication

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 03:03:12AM +0000, Varun Sethi wrote:
> Hi Michael,
> When you talk about VFIO in guest, is it with a purely emulated IOMMU in Qemu?

This can use the emulated IOMMU in Qemu.
That's probably fast enough if mappings are mostly static.
We can also add a PV-IOMMU if necessary.

> Also, I am not clear on the following points:
> 1. How transient memory would be mapped using BAR in the backend VM

The simplest way is that 
each update sends a vhost-user message. backend gets it and
mmaps it into backend QEMU and make it part of RAM memory slot.

Or - backend QEMU could detect a pagefault on access and get the
IOMMU from frontend QEMU - using vhost-user messages or
from shared memory.




> 2. How would the backend VM update the dirty page bitmap for the frontend VM
> 
> Regards
> Varun

The easiest to implement way is probably for backend QEMU to setup dirty tracking
for the relevant slot (upon getting vhost user message
from the frontend) then retrieve the dirty map
from kvm and record it in a shared memory region
(when do it? We could have an eventfd and/or vhost-user message to
trigger this from the frontend QEMU, or just use a timer).

An alternative is for backend VM to get access to dirty log
(e.g. map it within BAR) and update it directly in shared memory.
Seems like more work.

Marc-André Lureau recently sent patches to support passing
dirty log around, these would be useful.


> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: qemu-devel-bounces+varun.sethi=freescale.com@nongnu.org
> > [mailto:qemu-devel-bounces+varun.sethi=freescale.com@nongnu.org] On
> > Behalf Of Nakajima, Jun
> > Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 1:36 PM
> > To: Michael S. Tsirkin
> > Cc: virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org; Jan Kiszka;
> > Claudio.Fontana@huawei.com; qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Linux
> > Virtualization; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> > Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] rfc: vhost user enhancements for vm2vm
> > communication
> > 
> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Hello!
> > > During the KVM forum, we discussed supporting virtio on top of
> > > ivshmem. I have considered it, and came up with an alternative that
> > > has several advantages over that - please see below.
> > > Comments welcome.
> > 
> > Hi Michael,
> > 
> > I like this, and it should be able to achieve what I presented at KVM Forum
> > (vhost-user-shmem).
> > Comments below.
> > 
> > >
> > > -----
> > >
> > > Existing solutions to userspace switching between VMs on the same host
> > > are vhost-user and ivshmem.
> > >
> > > vhost-user works by mapping memory of all VMs being bridged into the
> > > switch memory space.
> > >
> > > By comparison, ivshmem works by exposing a shared region of memory to
> > all VMs.
> > > VMs are required to use this region to store packets. The switch only
> > > needs access to this region.
> > >
> > > Another difference between vhost-user and ivshmem surfaces when
> > > polling is used. With vhost-user, the switch is required to handle
> > > data movement between VMs, if using polling, this means that 1 host
> > > CPU needs to be sacrificed for this task.
> > >
> > > This is easiest to understand when one of the VMs is used with VF
> > > pass-through. This can be schematically shown below:
> > >
> > > +-- VM1 --------------+            +---VM2-----------+
> > > | virtio-pci          +-vhost-user-+ virtio-pci -- VF | -- VFIO -- IOMMU -- NIC
> > > +---------------------+            +-----------------+
> > >
> > >
> > > With ivshmem in theory communication can happen directly, with two VMs
> > > polling the shared memory region.
> > >
> > >
> > > I won't spend time listing advantages of vhost-user over ivshmem.
> > > Instead, having identified two advantages of ivshmem over vhost-user,
> > > below is a proposal to extend vhost-user to gain the advantages of
> > > ivshmem.
> > >
> > >
> > > 1: virtio in guest can be extended to allow support for IOMMUs. This
> > > provides guest with full flexibility about memory which is readable or
> > > write able by each device.
> > 
> > I assume that you meant VFIO only for virtio by "use of VFIO".  To get VFIO
> > working for general direct-I/O (including VFs) in guests, as you know, we
> > need to virtualize IOMMU (e.g. VT-d) and the interrupt remapping table on
> > x86 (i.e. nested VT-d).
> > 
> > > By setting up a virtio device for each other VM we need to communicate
> > > to, guest gets full control of its security, from mapping all memory
> > > (like with current vhost-user) to only mapping buffers used for
> > > networking (like ivshmem) to transient mappings for the duration of
> > > data transfer only.
> > 
> > And I think that we can use VMFUNC to have such transient mappings.
> > 
> > > This also allows use of VFIO within guests, for improved security.
> > >
> > > vhost user would need to be extended to send the mappings programmed
> > > by guest IOMMU.
> > 
> > Right. We need to think about cases where other VMs (VM3, etc.) join the
> > group or some existing VM leaves.
> > PCI hot-plug should work there (as you point out at "Advantages over
> > ivshmem" below).
> > 
> > >
> > > 2. qemu can be extended to serve as a vhost-user client:
> > > remote VM mappings over the vhost-user protocol, and map them into
> > > another VM's memory.
> > > This mapping can take, for example, the form of a BAR of a pci device,
> > > which I'll call here vhost-pci - with bus address allowed by VM1's
> > > IOMMU mappings being translated into offsets within this BAR within
> > > VM2's physical memory space.
> > 
> > I think it's sensible.
> > 
> > >
> > > Since the translation can be a simple one, VM2 can perform it within
> > > its vhost-pci device driver.
> > >
> > > While this setup would be the most useful with polling, VM1's
> > > ioeventfd can also be mapped to another VM2's irqfd, and vice versa,
> > > such that VMs can trigger interrupts to each other without need for a
> > > helper thread on the host.
> > >
> > >
> > > The resulting channel might look something like the following:
> > >
> > > +-- VM1 --------------+  +---VM2-----------+
> > > | virtio-pci -- iommu +--+ vhost-pci -- VF | -- VFIO -- IOMMU -- NIC
> > > +---------------------+  +-----------------+
> > >
> > > comparing the two diagrams, a vhost-user thread on the host is no
> > > longer required, reducing the host CPU utilization when polling is
> > > active.  At the same time, VM2 can not access all of VM1's memory - it
> > > is limited by the iommu configuration setup by VM1.
> > >
> > >
> > > Advantages over ivshmem:
> > >
> > > - more flexibility, endpoint VMs do not have to place data at any
> > >   specific locations to use the device, in practice this likely
> > >   means less data copies.
> > > - better standardization/code reuse
> > >   virtio changes within guests would be fairly easy to implement
> > >   and would also benefit other backends, besides vhost-user
> > >   standard hotplug interfaces can be used to add and remove these
> > >   channels as VMs are added or removed.
> > > - migration support
> > >   It's easy to implement since ownership of memory is well defined.
> > >   For example, during migration VM2 can notify hypervisor of VM1
> > >   by updating dirty bitmap each time is writes into VM1 memory.
> > 
> > Also, the ivshmem functionality could be implemented by this proposal:
> > - vswitch (or some VM) allocates memory regions in its address space, and
> > - it sets up that IOMMU mappings on the VMs be translated into the regions
> > 
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > --
> > > MST
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Virtualization mailing list
> > > Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
> > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > Jun
> > Intel Open Source Technology Center
>