Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 3/3] virtio PCI device

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Avi Kivity wrote:
Anthony Liguori wrote:
Avi Kivity wrote:
Anthony Liguori wrote:
This is a PCI device that implements a transport for virtio. It allows virtio
devices to be used by QEMU based VMMs like KVM or Xen.

+
+/* the notify function used when creating a virt queue */
+static void vp_notify(struct virtqueue *vq)
+{
+    struct virtio_pci_device *vp_dev = to_vp_device(vq->vdev);
+    struct virtio_pci_vq_info *info = vq->priv;
+
+ /* we write the queue's selector into the notification register to
+     * signal the other end */
+ iowrite16(info->queue_index, vp_dev->ioaddr + VIRTIO_PCI_QUEUE_NOTIFY);
+}
This means we can't kick multiple queues with one exit.

There is no interface in virtio currently to batch multiple queue notifications so the only way one could do this AFAICT is to use a timer to delay the notifications. Were you thinking of something else?


No.  We can change virtio though, so let's have a flexible ABI.

Well please propose the virtio API first and then I'll adjust the PCI ABI. I don't want to build things into the ABI that we never actually end up using in virtio :-)

I'd also like to see a hypercall-capable version of this (but that can wait).

That can be a different device.

That means the user has to select which device to expose. With feature bits, the hypervisor advertises both pio and hypercalls, the guest picks whatever it wants.

I was thinking more along the lines that a hypercall-based device would certainly be implemented in-kernel whereas the current device is naturally implemented in userspace. We can simply use a different device for in-kernel drivers than for userspace drivers. There's no point at all in doing a hypercall based userspace device IMHO.

I don't think so. A vmexit is required to lower the IRQ line. It may be possible to do something clever like set a shared memory value that's checked on every vmexit. I think it's very unlikely that it's worth it though.

Why so unlikely?  Not all workloads will have good batching.

It's pretty invasive. I think a more paravirt device that expected an edge triggered interrupt would be a better solution for those types of devices.

+    return ret;
+}
+
+/* the config->find_vq() implementation */
+static struct virtqueue *vp_find_vq(struct virtio_device *vdev, unsigned index,
+                    bool (*callback)(struct virtqueue *vq))
+{
+    struct virtio_pci_device *vp_dev = to_vp_device(vdev);
+    struct virtio_pci_vq_info *info;
+    struct virtqueue *vq;
+    int err;
+    u16 num;
+
+    /* Select the queue we're interested in */
+    iowrite16(index, vp_dev->ioaddr + VIRTIO_PCI_QUEUE_SEL);
I would really like to see this implemented as pci config space, with no tricks like multiplexing several virtqueues on one register. Something like the PCI BARs where you have all the register numbers allocated statically to queues.

My first implementation did that. I switched to using a selector because it reduces the amount of PCI config space used and does not limit the number of queues defined by the ABI as much.

But... it's tricky, and it's nonstandard. With pci config, you can do live migration by shipping the pci config space to the other side. With the special iospace, you need to encode/decode it.

None of the PCI devices currently work like that in QEMU. It would be very hard to make a device that worked this way because since the order in which values are written matter a whole lot. For instance, if you wrote the status register before the queue information, the driver could get into a funky state.

We'll still need save/restore routines for virtio devices. I don't really see this as a problem since we do this for every other device.

Not much of an argument, I know.


wrt. number of queues, 8 queues will consume 32 bytes of pci space if all you store is the ring pfn.

You also at least need a num argument which takes you to 48 or 64 depending on whether you care about strange formatting. 8 queues may not be enough either. Eric and I have discussed whether the 9p virtio device should support multiple mounts per-virtio device and if so, whether each one should have it's own queue. Any devices that supports this sort of multiplexing will very quickly start using a lot of queues.

I think most types of hardware have some notion of a selector or mode. Take a look at the LSI adapter or even VGA.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux