From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 823FD2C57
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 03:47:26 +0100 (CET)
Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21])
 by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 24 Mar 2016 19:47:25 -0700
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,388,1455004800"; d="scan'208";a="941149964"
Received: from yliu-dev.sh.intel.com (HELO yliu-dev) ([10.239.66.49])
 by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 24 Mar 2016 19:47:24 -0700
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 10:49:59 +0800
From: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
To: "shesha Sreenivasamurthy (shesha)" <shesha@cisco.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?Marc-Andr=E9?= Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20160325024959.GZ979@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
References: <D318036F.32CB9%shesha@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <D318036F.32CB9%shesha@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] DPDK's vhost-user logging capability
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 02:47:26 -0000

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 03:34:09PM +0000, shesha Sreenivasamurthy (shesha) wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> I was going over vhost-user migration capability in DPDK in lieu of a Cisco's
> multi-q DPDK vhost-user application. I see that log_base address is implemented
> as per virtio_net device. However, desc, addr and used is per vhost_virtqueue.
> Additionally, QEMU sends one VHOST_USER_SET_LOG_BASE per queue-pair (QEMU - hw/
> virtio/vhost.c::vhost_dev_set_log).
> 
> Does it mean we need to log dirty pages of all rings to same location ?

Hi,

Yes, and QEMU allocates only one block of memory (see vhost_log_alloc())
after all.

> If that
> is the case then why does QEMU sends separate VHOST_USER_SET_LOG_BASE per queue
> pair ?

That's kind of like a design. One queue pair is associated with one
vhost_dev struct in QEMU, hence, all those requests will go through
vhost_dev structs (aka, all qeueu pairs), including those that one
time request is needed only, such as VHOST_USER_SET_MEM_TABLE. Thus,
we introduced vhost_user_one_time_request() to avoid such case.

So, good question, and we may need add it to the "one time request"
group, Marc?

And FYI, for queue-pair (or vring) request, there should be an index
in the payload, to point to the right vring. If not, it normally
means a global request, that _may_ need be sent once only.

	--yliu