OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

virtio-dev message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 0/3] Use of unique identifier for pairing virtio and passthrough devices...

On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 6:54 AM, Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jul 2018 17:49:10 -0700
> Siwei Liu <loseweigh@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 5:15 AM, Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 3 Jul 2018 16:31:03 -0700
>> > Siwei Liu <loseweigh@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 7:52 AM, Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote:
>> >> > From my point of view, there are several concerns:
>> >> > - This approach assumes a homogeneous pairing (same transport), and
>> >> >   even more, it assumes that this transport is pci.
>> >>
>> >> Not really.
>> >>
>> >> There could be some other place to define a generic (transport
>> >> independent) virtio feature, whereas the data (group ID) can be stored
>> >> in transport specific way. That generic virtio feature and the way to
>> >> specify target transport to group with is yet to be defined. I don't
>> >> see this patch is in conflict with that direction.
>> >
>> > Sorry, but I really do not see how this is not pci-specific.
>> >
>> > - One of your components is a bridge. A transport does not necessarily
>> >   have that concept, at least not in a way meaningful for this approach
>> >   to work.
>> Assuming we have a transport agnostic high-level virtio feature to
>> indicate that the target type for the to-be-paired device is PCI, then
>> we have to use the data stored in a PC bridge to pair the device. It
>> does not associate transport of virtio itself with the type of target
>> device, right. The introduction of PCI bridge is just for storing the
>> group ID data for the PCI passthrough device case, while one may
>> define and introduce other means to retrieve the info if target device
>> type is not PCI e.g. a special instruction to get group ID on s390x
>> zPCI.
> Well, zPCI *is* PCI, just a very quirky one. I'm not sure how upper
> layers are supposed to distinguish that.
> Is there really no existing PCI identifier that (a) the host admin
> already knows and (b) the guest can retrieve easily?

Not sure if zPCI should be categorized as real PCI due to lack of
topology. Some other virtual PCI or para-virtual PCI buses behave like
PCI but not a full blown one. Those are not regarded as (native) PCI
emulation either.

Can s390x guest use UID and FID described in the blog post you wrote
to identify zPCI device? I am thinking if we can define other grouping
mechanism than the 64bit long group ID (formerly 128 bit UUID). The
high-level indirection not just specifies target transport, but maybe
grouping mechanism also.

>> > - Even if we can introduce transport-specific ways for other
>> >   transports, the bridge concept still means that the pairing cannot be
>> >   cross-transport.
>> Sorry, I did not get this. A bridge is PCI specific concept indeed,
>> but the virtio iteself can be of other transport. Why it matters? I
>> guess a higher-level feature is needed to define the target transport
>> for the to-be-paired device. The group ID info can reside on the
>> transport specific area on virtio itself though. E.g. for virtio-pci,
>> get it on the vendor specific capability in the PCI configuration
>> space.
>> For virtio-ccw, you may come up with CCW specific way to get the group
>> ID data. Is this not what you had in mind?
> No, my idea was it to add it as a field in the virtio-net config space,
> making it transport-agnostic. (And making this a typed value, depending
> on the vfio device we want to pair the virtio device with.)
> If we want to extend that to other device types, we can add the field
> in their config space; but I'd rather prefer a more generic "host
> relays config metainformation" approach.
>> >
>> > I think we should be clear what we want from a generic
>> > (transport-agnostic) virtio feature first. Probably some way to relay
>> > an identifier of the to-be-paired device (transport-specific +
>> > information what the transport is?)
>> >
>> Are we talking about the transport of the virtio itself or the target
>> device? Note the virtio feature must always be retrieved using
>> transport specific way, although the semantics of the feauture can be
>> transport independent/agnostic. Once a virtio driver instace gets to
>> the point to read feature bits from the device, the transport of that
>> virtio device is determined and cannot be changed later.
> No, I don't want to introduce a new, per-transport mechanism, but
> rather put it into the config space.


I think the common understanding is that config space shouldn't be per
device type. MST's suggestion in the other mail to carve some space
from the device config space for generic use seems viable to me.

>> >> > - It won't work for zPCI (although zPCI is really strange) -- this
>> >> >   means it will be completely unusable on s390x.
>> >> I still need more information about this use case. First off, does
>> >> zPCI support all the hot plug semantics or functionality the same way
>> >> as PCI? Or there has to be some platform or firmeware support like
>> >> ACPI hotplug? Does QEMU have all the pieces ready for s390 zPCI
>> >> hotplug?
>> >
>> > zPCI is a strange beast, so first a pointer to a writeup I did:
>> > https://virtualpenguins.blogspot.de/2018/02/notes-on-pci-on-s390x.html
>> >
>> > It does support hotplug, within the s390 architectural context, but
>> > that should be fine for our needs here.
>> >
>> > My concern comes from the 'no topology' issue. We build a fake topology
>> > in QEMU (to use the generic pci infrastructure), but the guest does not
>> > see any of this. It issues an instruction and gets a list of functions.
>> > This means any bridge information is not accessible to the guest.
>> That is the reason why I prefer leaving it to specific transport
>> (zPCI) to define its own means to present and retrieve the group ID
>> information. The high-level feature bit just provides the indirection
>> to the target transport (for the to-be-paired device), while seperate
>> transport can have a way of its own to present/retrieve the group ID
>> data.
>> I don't know where to present that group ID data on s390 zPCI though
>> to be honest. But I doubt we can come up with a very general
>> transport-agnostic way to present the data for both (and pontentially
>> ALL) bus architectures.
> I don't want to establish zPCI as a different transport than 'normal'
> PCI; that would just make life difficult for everyone. The 'put it into
> virtio config space' approach would mean a second feature bit, but
> should just work.

Sorry, but we still need an ID to match the VFIO passthrough device. I
don't see how putting the info into virtio config space can address
the problem.


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]