[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] RFC: Use of bridge devices to store pairing information...
On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 08:26:03AM -0700, Samudrala, Sridhar wrote: > On 5/31/2018 6:28 PM, Venu Busireddy wrote: > > I looked at the discussion in the threads [1] and [2], where it was > > suggested placing the passthrough device behind one bridge, and the virtio > > device behind another bridge, and storing in those bridges' configuration > > space some unique identifier that can be used to pair the two devices. > > > > After some discussions with Si-Wei Liu and others, we believe that the > > following scheme may be a viable approach. Please take a look at this > > proposal and provide your thoughts. > > > > 1. Enhance the QEMU CLI to include a "group_id" option to the bridge > > devices for Q35 as well as i440FX models. I have already made changes > > for the Q35 model (ioh3420 bridge). > > > > 2. When the guest is created, the operator creates two bridge devices > > (for example, using '-device ioh3420,group_id="string"'), and specifies > > a unique identifier string for both bridges. This identifier can be > > the UUID generated by 'uuidgen' command. > > > > 3. QEMU places this unique identifier in the PCI configuration space of > > the bridge as Vendor-Specific capability (0x09). The "Vendor" here is > > not to be confused with a specific organization. Instead, the vendor > > of the bridge is QEMU (with vendor ID 0x8086 and device ID 0x3420). > > > > 4. The operator places the passthrough device behind one of the bridges, > > and the virtio device behind the other bridge. > > > > 5. Patch 4 in patch series [3] should be modified to use the unique > > identifier string stored in the bridges' configuration space instead > > of the MAC address for pairing the devices. > > This should be an alternate option that allows failover slaves to be registered > based on MAC and ID. I wonder whether we ever want to pair based solely on ID and not on MAC. There used to be devices which randomized VF MAC on each reset but I think most of them have been changed to get MAC from the PF. Not sure whether any are left. If we want the flexibility, we can use a separate feature bit for matching by ID. If not we can just extend the meaning of the existing one. > > > > > If it is desirable to create only one bridge instead of two (to conserve > > the number of devices in the system), then the passthrough device can be > > attached to that single bridge (with the identifier), and the identifier > > for the virtio device can be stored in the virtio device's configuration > > space itself. To do that, we need to update the virtio specification, > > and I have sent a proposal [4] to the OASIS team to update the virtio > > specification. If that proposal is accepted, then we can modify QEMU to > > use the virtio device's configuration space instead of the second bridge > > to store the unique identifier. > > I think one bridge solution is much cleaner than having to use 2 bridges. > So for one bridge, we'd have a bridge with a special device/vendor ID, if virtio is behind that, we use that for pairing. > > > > Thank you for sparing the time. > > > > Venu > > > > [1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-virtualization/msg33518.html > > [2] https://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg499011.html > > [3] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/920005/ > > [4] https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/virtio-dev/201805/msg00118.html > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]