From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
To: "谢华伟(此时此刻)" <huawei.xhw@alibaba-inc.com>,
"Maxime Coquelin" <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, anatoly.burakov@intel.com,
david.marchand@redhat.com, grive@u256.net,
zhihong.wang@intel.com, chenbo.xia@intel.com
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] pci: support both PIO and MMIO BAR for legacy virtio on x86
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 10:44:39 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a6998c46-8026-7aec-0fe6-d96a05cb6a41@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <fe66e112-8edc-e18d-dcd2-009b422aa3f2@alibaba-inc.com>
On 10/22/2020 10:15 AM, 谢华伟(此时此刻) wrote:
>
> On 2020/10/22 1:24, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>> On 10/21/2020 1:32 PM, 谢华伟(此时此刻) wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2020/10/21 19:49, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>> On 10/13/2020 9:41 AM, 谢华伟(此时此刻) wrote:
>>>>> From: "huawei.xhw" <huawei.xhw@alibaba-inc.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Legacy virtio-pci only supports PIO BAR resource. As we need to create lots of
>>>>> virtio devices and PIO resource on x86 is very limited, we expose MMIO BAR.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kernel supports both PIO and MMIO BAR for legacy virtio-pci device. We
>>>>> handles
>>>>> different type of BAR in the similar way.
>>>>>
>>>>> In previous implementation, with igb_uio we get PIO address from igb_uio
>>>>> sysfs entry; with uio_pci_generic, we get PIO address from
>>>>> /proc/ioports.
>>>>> For PIO/MMIO RW, there is different path for different drivers and arch.
>>>>> For VFIO, PIO/MMIO RW is through syscall, which has big performance
>>>>> issue.
>>>>> On X86, it assumes only PIO is supported.
>>>>>
>>>>> All of the above is too much twisted.
>>>>> This patch unifies the way to get both PIO and MMIO address for different
>>>>> driver
>>>>> and arch, all from standard resource attr under pci sysfs.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As mentined above this patch does multiple things.
>>>>
>>>> The main target is, as far as I understand, you have a legacy virtio device
>>>> which supports "memory-mapped I/O" and "port-mapped I/O", but virtio logic
>>>> forces legacy devices to use the PIO but you want to be able to use the MMIO
>>>> with this device.
>>> yes.
>>>>
>>>> The solution below is adding MMIO support in the PIO funciton, and
>>>> distinguish MMIO or PIO based on their address check.
>>> Yes, kernel does this in the similar way.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Instead of this, can't this be resolved in the virtio side, like if the
>>>> legacy device supports MMIO (detect this somehow) use the MMIO istead of
>>>> hacking PIO mapping to support MMIO?
>>>
>>> Get your concern.
>>>
>>> 1>
>>>
>>> If we move, I think we should move all those PCI codes into virtio side, not
>>> just the mmio part.
>>>
>>> Without my patch, those PCI codes are virtio-pci device specific, not generic.
>>>
>>> With this patch, those pci ioport map/rw code could also be used for other
>>> devices if they support both PIO and MMIO.
>>>
>>
>> I was not suggesting moving any code into virtio, but within 'vtpci_init()'
>> what happens when "hw->modern = 1;" is set?
>> And if this is set for your device, will it work without change?
>
> Yes, this will only affect legacy_device, which uses legacy_ops to access port io.
>
> If is is modern_device, port access will go through modern_ops.
>
> We only change the implementation in legacy_ops.
>
I am saying something else.
When a device is marked as "hw->modern = 1;", it will use MMIO, right?
If, somehow, your device marked as "hw->modern = 1;", will that path work as
expected for your device?
>
>>
>>> Every option is ok. Hope i make myself clear.
>>>
>>> 2> I don't think this is hacking. for rte_pci_ioport_map/read/write, if
>>> ioport could be both PIO and MMIO, then everything is reasonable.
>>>
>>> Take how kernel does port map for example:
>>>
>>> vp_dev->ioaddr = pci_iomap(pci_dev, 0, 0);
>>>
>>> Here io doesn't mean PIO only. It could also be MMIO. Kernel then uses
>>> ioread/write to access PIO/MMIO port.
>>>
>>> Actually we are pretty much the same in the interface.
>>>
>>> I think this patch extends rather then hacks the ioport interface to support
>>> MMIO.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have other concerns, specially mergin VFIO mapping too, but lets clarify
>>>> above first.
>>>
>>> vfio doesn't affect other driver but only virtio.
>>>
>>
>> Why it doesn't affect other drivers, can't there be other driver using PIO?
>
> Currently only virtio-pci uses PIO, and only virtio PMD uses these port
> map/read/write functions.
>
> I don't foresee in future any new device uses PIO.
>
I see but technically there can be other users.
> /huawei
>
>>
>>> igb_uio, uio_pci_generic and vfio-pci all uses the same way to map/rw ioport.
>>>
>>
>> For vfio, code changes 'pci_vfio_ioport_read()' to the direct address read,
>> first I don't know if this is always safe, and my question why there is a
>> syscall introduced at first place if you can read from address directly?
>
> Original vfio way works, but we don't need that syscall. Under whatever driver,
> we could use the simple way as in this patch.
>
If vfio works, you have already a solution, that is good. But I see you are not
happy with its performance.
> /huawei
>
>>
>> Is your device works as expected when vfio-pci kernel module used? Since it is
>> not suffering from PIO limitation, right?
>
> Certainly i tested vfio module. Firstly, i didn't intend to fix vfio performance
> issue, but i heard that igb_uio will be removed.
>
Yes, it will be removed in the long run.
> /huawei
>
>>
>>
>> And I wonder if the patch can be done as three patches to simply it, as:
>> 1) Combine 'RTE_PCI_KDRV_IGB_UIO' & 'RTE_PCI_KDRV_UIO_GENERIC' (remove
>> pci_ioport_map)
>> 2) Update 'pci_uio_ioport_map()' to add memory map support (and update
>> read/write functions according)
>> 3) Combine vfio & uio
>>
> Got it. It makes sense to split, but i think this patch is already simple enough.
>
The patch is doing many things in one patch, I think it is better to separate
logically separate issues, although they are simple.
> Let me check.
>
> /huawei
>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> ferruh
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> We distinguish PIO and MMIO by their address like how kernel does. It is
>>>>> ugly but works.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: huawei.xhw <huawei.xhw@alibaba-inc.com>
>>
>> <...>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-22 9:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 58+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-09-30 14:59 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] " 谢华伟(此时此刻)
2020-10-01 10:22 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2020-10-02 5:44 ` 谢华伟(此时此刻)
2020-10-09 8:36 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] " 谢华伟(此时此刻)
2020-10-13 8:41 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] support both PIO and MMIO bar for virtio pci device 谢华伟(此时此刻)
2020-10-13 8:41 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] pci: support both PIO and MMIO BAR for legacy virtio on x86 谢华伟(此时此刻)
2020-10-13 12:34 ` 谢华伟(此时此刻)
2020-10-21 8:46 ` 谢华伟(此时此刻)
2020-10-21 11:49 ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-10-21 12:32 ` 谢华伟(此时此刻)
2020-10-21 17:24 ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-10-22 9:15 ` 谢华伟(此时此刻)
2020-10-22 9:44 ` Ferruh Yigit [this message]
2020-10-22 9:57 ` 谢华伟(此时此刻)
2020-10-22 15:51 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/3] support both PIO and MMIO BAR for virtio PMD 谢华伟(此时此刻)
2020-10-22 15:51 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/3] PCI: use PCI standard sysfs entry to get PIO address 谢华伟(此时此刻)
2021-01-12 8:07 ` Maxime Coquelin
2021-01-14 18:23 ` 谢华伟(此时此刻)
2021-01-24 15:10 ` Xueming(Steven) Li
2020-10-22 15:51 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] PCI: support MMIO in rte_pci_ioport_map/unap/read/write 谢华伟(此时此刻)
2021-01-12 8:23 ` Maxime Coquelin
2021-01-21 6:30 ` 谢华伟(此时此刻)
2021-01-24 15:22 ` Xueming(Steven) Li
2021-01-25 3:08 ` 谢华伟(此时此刻)
2021-01-27 10:40 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-01-27 15:34 ` 谢华伟(此时此刻)
2021-01-27 16:45 ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-10-22 15:51 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 3/3] PCI: don't use vfio ioctl call to access PIO resource 谢华伟(此时此刻)
2021-01-12 9:37 ` Maxime Coquelin
2021-01-12 16:58 ` Maxime Coquelin
2021-01-20 14:54 ` 谢华伟(此时此刻)
2021-01-21 8:29 ` Maxime Coquelin
2021-01-21 14:57 ` 谢华伟(此时此刻)
2021-01-21 15:00 ` 谢华伟(此时此刻)
2021-01-21 15:38 ` Maxime Coquelin
2021-01-22 7:25 ` 谢华伟(此时此刻)
2021-01-26 10:44 ` Maxime Coquelin
2021-01-27 10:32 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-01-27 12:17 ` Maxime Coquelin
2021-01-27 14:43 ` 谢华伟(此时此刻)
2021-01-27 16:45 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-01-28 13:43 ` 谢华伟(此时此刻)
2021-01-26 12:30 ` 谢华伟(此时此刻)
2021-01-26 12:35 ` Maxime Coquelin
2021-01-26 14:24 ` 谢华伟(此时此刻)
2020-10-27 8:50 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/3] support both PIO and MMIO BAR for virtio PMD 谢华伟(此时此刻)
2020-10-28 3:48 ` 谢华伟(此时此刻)
2020-11-02 11:56 ` 谢华伟(此时此刻)
2020-11-10 12:35 ` 谢华伟(此时此刻)
2020-11-10 12:42 ` David Marchand
2020-11-12 13:35 ` 谢华伟(此时此刻)
2020-12-14 14:24 ` 谢华伟(此时此刻)
2020-12-16 7:54 ` Maxime Coquelin
2021-01-12 17:37 ` Maxime Coquelin
2021-01-14 18:19 ` 谢华伟(此时此刻)
2021-01-21 4:12 ` 谢华伟(此时此刻)
2021-01-21 8:47 ` Maxime Coquelin
2021-01-21 13:51 ` 谢华伟(此时此刻)
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=a6998c46-8026-7aec-0fe6-d96a05cb6a41@intel.com \
--to=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
--cc=anatoly.burakov@intel.com \
--cc=chenbo.xia@intel.com \
--cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=grive@u256.net \
--cc=huawei.xhw@alibaba-inc.com \
--cc=maxime.coquelin@redhat.com \
--cc=zhihong.wang@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).