Re: [virtio-dev] RE: [PATCH v3 6/6] vhost-user: support registering external host notifiers

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

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 04:24:29PM +0000, Liang, Cunming wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael S. Tsirkin [mailto:mst@redhat.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 11:19 PM
> > To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
> > Cc: Liang, Cunming <cunming.liang@intel.com>; Bie, Tiwei <tiwei.bie@intel.com>;
> > jasowang@redhat.com; alex.williamson@redhat.com; stefanha@redhat.com;
> > qemu-devel@nongnu.org; virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org; Daly, Dan
> > <dan.daly@intel.com>; Tan, Jianfeng <jianfeng.tan@intel.com>; Wang, Zhihong
> > <zhihong.wang@intel.com>; Wang, Xiao W <xiao.w.wang@intel.com>
> > Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] RE: [PATCH v3 6/6] vhost-user: support registering
> > external host notifiers
> > 
> > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 03:02:40PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > > On 19/04/2018 14:43, Liang, Cunming wrote:
> > > >> 2. Memory barriers. Right now after updating the avail idx, virtio
> > > >> does smp_wmb() and then the MMIO write. Normal hardware drivers do
> > > >> wmb() which is an sfence. Can a PCI device read bypass index write
> > > >> and see a stale index value?
> > > >
> > > > A compiler barrier is enough on strongly-ordered memory platform. As
> > > > it doesn't re-order store, PCI device won't see a stale index value.
> > > > But a weakly-ordered memory needs sfence.
> > >
> > > That is complicated then.  We need to define a feature bit and (in the
> > > Linux driver) propagate it to vring_create_virtqueue's weak_barrier
> > > argument.  However:
> > >
> > > - if we make it 1 when weak barriers are needed, the device also needs
> > > to nack feature negotiation (not allow setting the FEATURES_OK) if the
> > > bit is not set by the driver.
> > >  However, that is not enough.  Live
> > > migration assumes that it is okay to migrate a virtual machine from a
> > > source that doesn't support a feature to a destination that supports it.
> > >  In this case, it would assume that it is okay to migrate from
> > > software virtio to hardware virtio.  This is wrong because the
> > > destination would use weak barriers
> > 
> > You can't migrate between systems with different sets of device features right
> > now.
> > 
> > > - if we make it 1 when strong barriers are enough, software virtio
> > > devices needs to be updated to expose the bit.  This works, including
> > > live migration, but updated drivers will now go slower when run
> > > against an old device that doesn't know the feature bit.
> > >
> > > Maybe bump the PCI revision, so that only the new revision has the bit?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Paolo
> > 
> > As a first step, if you want to migrate to a HW offloaded solution then you need
> > to enable the feature.
> 
> > It does mean it will go a bit slower when run with software,
> > so it's only good if most systems in your cluster do have the HW offload.
> To clarify a bit more, it's suboptimal to always use mandatory barriers for MMIO. Per strongly-order memory, 'weak barriers' (smp_wmb) is pretty good for MMIO. The tradeoff doesn't always happen, software and HW offload can align on the same page.

I agree to all of the above except where you say smp_wmb.

smp_wmb is for controlling SMP effects on Linux, and I suspect
it will not do the right thing on some non-Intel architectures.

The claim is I think correct for Intel/AMD platforms, and probably
other strongly ordered ones. I suspect it's incorrect for ARM and
power.

Replace smp_wmb with 'asm volatile ("") on Intel' and I'll agree.



> > I think we can start by getting that working and think about ways to improve
> > down the road.
> > 
> > 
> > That's the usecase we designed FEATURES_OK for though, so I do think/hope it's
> > enough and we don't need to play with revisions.
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > MST