DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
To: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>, Xiao Wang <xiao.w.wang@intel.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 3/4] vhost: improve device ready definition
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 15:55:33 +0200
Message-ID: <7c6bd0b2-8657-3c34-ab1f-f397c39ea2ec@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AM0PR0502MB401979276480A2F7D1CF69A0D2940@AM0PR0502MB4019.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

Hi Matan,

On 6/23/20 1:53 PM, Matan Azrad wrote:
> 
> 
> From: Maxime Coquelin:
>> On 6/23/20 11:02 AM, Matan Azrad wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Maxime Coquelin:
>>>> On 6/22/20 5:51 PM, Matan Azrad wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Maxime Coquelin:
>>>>>> On 6/22/20 3:43 PM, Matan Azrad wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Maxime Coquelin:
>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, June 22, 2020 3:33 PM
>>>>>>>> To: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>; Xiao Wang
>>>>>>>> <xiao.w.wang@intel.com>
>>>>>>>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/4] vhost: improve device ready
>>>>>>>> definition
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/22/20 12:06 PM, Matan Azrad wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Maxime
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, June 22, 2020 11:56 AM
>>>>>>>>>> To: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>; Xiao Wang
>>>>>>>>>> <xiao.w.wang@intel.com>
>>>>>>>>>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/4] vhost: improve device ready
>>>>>>>>>> definition
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/22/20 10:41 AM, Matan Azrad wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> The issue is if you only check ready state only before and
>>>>>>>>>>>> after the message affecting the ring is handled, it can be
>>>>>>>>>>>> ready at both stages, while the rings have changed and state
>>>>>>>>>>>> change callback should
>>>>>>>>>> have been called.
>>>>>>>>>>> But in this version I checked twice, before message handler
>>>>>>>>>>> and after
>>>>>>>>>> message handler, so it should catch any update.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, this is not enough, we have to check also during some
>>>>>>>>>> handlers, so that the ready state is invalidated because
>>>>>>>>>> sometimes it will be ready before and after the message handler
>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>> with different values.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's what I did in my example patch:
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -1847,15 +1892,16 @@ vhost_user_set_vring_kick(struct
>>>>>> virtio_net
>>>>>>>>>> **pdev, struct VhostUserMsg *msg,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>         if (vq->kickfd >= 0)
>>>>>>>>>>                 close(vq->kickfd);
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> +       vq->kickfd = VIRTIO_UNINITIALIZED_EVENTFD;
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> +       vhost_user_update_vring_state(dev, file.index);
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>         vq->kickfd = file.fd;
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Without that, the ready check will return ready before and
>>>>>>>>>> after the kickfd changed and the driver won't be notified.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The driver will be notified in the next
>>>>>>>>> VHOST_USER_SET_VRING_ENABLE
>>>>>>>> message according to v1.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One of our assumption we agreed on in the design mail is that it
>>>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>>> make sense that QEMU will change queue configuration without
>>>>>>>> enabling the queue again.
>>>>>>>>> Because of that we decided to force calling state callback again
>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>> QEMU send VHOST_USER_SET_VRING_ENABLE(1) message even if
>> the
>>>>>> queue is
>>>>>>>> already ready.
>>>>>>>>> So when driver/app see state enable->enable, it should take into
>>>>>>>>> account
>>>>>>>> that the queue configuration was probably changed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think that this assumption is correct according to the QEMU code.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, this was our initial assumption.
>>>>>>>> But now looking into the details of the implementation, I find it
>>>>>>>> is even cleaner & clearer not to do this assumption.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's why I prefer to collect all the ready checks callbacks
>>>>>>>>> (queue state and
>>>>>>>> device new\conf) to one function that will be called after the
>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>> handler:
>>>>>>>>> Pseudo:
>>>>>>>>>  vhost_user_update_ready_statuses() {
>>>>>>>>> 	switch (msg):
>>>>>>>>> 		case enable:
>>>>>>>>> 			if(enable is 1)
>>>>>>>>> 				force queue state =1.
>>>>>>>>> 		case callfd
>>>>>>>>> 		case kickfd
>>>>>>>>> 				.....
>>>>>>>>> 		Check queue and device ready + call callbacks if
>> needed..
>>>>>>>>> 		Default
>>>>>>>>> 			Return;
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I find it more natural to "invalidate" ready state where it is
>>>>>>>> handled (after vring_invalidate(), before setting new FD for call
>>>>>>>> & kick, ...)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think that if you go with this direction, if the first queue
>>>>>>> pair is invalidated,
>>>>>> you need to notify app\driver also about device ready change.
>>>>>>> Also it will cause 2 notifications to the driver instead of one in
>>>>>>> case of FD
>>>>>> change.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You'll always end-up with two notifications, either Qemu has sent
>>>>>> the disable and so you'll have one notification for the disable and
>>>>>> one for the enable, or it didn't sent the disable and it will
>>>>>> happen at old value invalidation time and after new value is taken into
>> account.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't see it in current QEMU behavior.
>>>>> When working MQ I see that some virtqs get configuration message
>>>>> while
>>>> they are in enabled state.
>>>>> Then, enable message is sent again later.
>>>>
>>>> I guess you mean the first queue pair? And it would not be in ready
>>>> state as it would be the initial configuration of the queue?
>>>
>>> Even after initialization when queue is ready.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why not to take this correct assumption and update ready state
>>>>>>> only in one
>>>>>> point in the code instead of doing it in all the configuration
>>>>>> handlers
>>>> around?
>>>>>>> IMO, It is correct, less intrusive, simpler, clearer and cleaner.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I just looked closer at the Vhost-user spec, and I'm no more so
>>>>>> sure this is a correct assumption:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "While processing the rings (whether they are enabled or not),
>>>>>> client must support changing some configuration aspects on the fly."
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, this doesn't explain how configuration is changed on the fly.
>>>>
>>>> I agree it lacks a bit of clarity.
>>>>
>>>>> As I mentioned, QEMU sends enable message always after configuration
>>>> message.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but we should not do assumptions on current Qemu version when
>>>> possible. Better to be safe and follow the specification, it will be more
>> robust.
>>>> There is also the Virtio-user PMD to take into account for example.
>>>
>>> I understand your point here but do you really want to be ready for any
>> configuration update in run time?
>>> What does it mean? How datatpath should handle configuration from
>> control thread in run time while traffic is on?
>>> For example, changing queue size \ addresses must stop traffic before...
>>> Also changing FDs is very sensitive.
>>>
>>> It doesn't make sense to me.
>>>
>>> Also, according to "on the fly" direction we should not disable the queue
>> unless enable message is coming to disable it.
> 
> No response, so looks like you agree that it doesn't make sense.

No, my reply was general to all your comments.

With SW backend, I agree we don't need to disable the rings in case of
asynchronous changes to the ring because we protect it with a lock, so
we are sure the ring won't be accessed by another thread while doing the
change.

For vDPA case that's more problematic because we have no such locking
mechanism.

For example memory hotplug, Qemu does not seem to disable the queues so
we need to stop the vDPA device one way or another so that it does not
process the rings while the Vhost lib remaps the memory areas.

>>> In addition:
>>> Do you really want to toggle vDPA drivers\app for any configuration
>> message? It may cause queue recreation for each one (at least for mlx5).
>>
>> I want to have something robust and maintainable.
> 
> Me too.
> 
>> These messages arriving after a queue have been configured once are rare
>> events, but this is usually the kind of things that cause maintenance burden.
> 
> In case of guest poll mode (testpmd virtio) we all the time get callfd twice.

Right.

>> If you look at my example patch, you will understand that with my proposal,
>> there won't be any more state change notification than with your proposal
>> when Qemu or any other Vhost-user master send a disable request before
>> sending the request that impact the queue state.
> 
> we didn't talk about disable time - this one is very simple.
> 
> Yes, In case the queue is disabled your proposal doesn't send extra notification as my.
> But in case the queue is ready, your proposal send extra not ready notification for kikfd,callfd,set_vring_base configurations.

I think this is necessary for synchronization with the Vhost-user
master (in case the master asks for this synchronization, like
set_mem_table for instance when reply-ack is enabled).

>> It just adds more robustness if this unlikely event happens, by invalidating
>> the ring state to not ready before doing the actual ring configuration change.
>> So that this config change is not missed by the vDPA driver or the application.
> 
> One more issue here is that there is some time that device is ready (already configured) and the first vittq-pair is not ready (your invalidate proposal for set_vring_base).



> It doesn’t save the concept that device is ready only in case the first virtq-pair is ready.

I understand the spec as "the device is ready as soon as the first queue
pair is ready", but I might be wrong.

Do you suggest to call the dev_close() vDPA callback and the
destroy_device() application callback as soon as one of the ring of the
first queue pair receive a disable request or, with my patch, when one
of the rings receives a request that changes the ring state?

> 
> I will not insist anymore on waiting for enable for notifying although I not fan with it.
> 
> So, I suggest to create 1 notification function to be called after message handler and before reply.
> This function is the only one which notify ready states in the next options:
> 
> 1. virtq ready state is changed in the queue.
> 2. virtq ready state stays on after configuration message handler.
> 3. device state will be enabled when the first queue pair is ready.

IIUC, it will not disable the queues when there is a state change, is
that correct? If so, I think it does not work with memory hotplug case I
mentioned earlier.

Even for the callfd double change it can be problematic as Vhost-lib
will close the first one while it will still be used by the driver (Btw,
I see my example patch is also buggy in this regards, it should reset
the call_fd value in the virtqueue, then call
vhost_user_update_vring_state() and finally close the FD).

Thanks,
Maxime
> 
> Matan
> 
> 
> 
>> Maxime
> 


  reply	other threads:[~2020-06-23 13:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 59+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-06-18 16:28 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 0/4] vhost: improve ready state Matan Azrad
2020-06-18 16:28 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 1/4] vhost: support host notifier queue configuration Matan Azrad
2020-06-19  6:44   ` Maxime Coquelin
2020-06-19 13:28     ` Matan Azrad
2020-06-19 14:01       ` Maxime Coquelin
2020-06-21  6:26         ` Matan Azrad
2020-06-22  8:06           ` Maxime Coquelin
2020-06-18 16:28 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 2/4] vhost: skip access lock when vDPA is configured Matan Azrad
2020-06-19  6:49   ` Maxime Coquelin
2020-06-18 16:28 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 3/4] vhost: improve device ready definition Matan Azrad
2020-06-19  7:41   ` Maxime Coquelin
2020-06-19 12:04     ` Maxime Coquelin
2020-06-19 13:11     ` Matan Azrad
2020-06-19 13:54       ` Maxime Coquelin
2020-06-21  6:20         ` Matan Azrad
2020-06-22  8:04           ` Maxime Coquelin
2020-06-22  8:41             ` Matan Azrad
2020-06-22  8:56               ` Maxime Coquelin
2020-06-22 10:06                 ` Matan Azrad
2020-06-22 12:32                   ` Maxime Coquelin
2020-06-22 13:43                     ` Matan Azrad
2020-06-22 14:55                       ` Maxime Coquelin
2020-06-22 15:51                         ` Matan Azrad
2020-06-22 16:47                           ` Maxime Coquelin
2020-06-23  9:02                             ` Matan Azrad
2020-06-23  9:19                               ` Maxime Coquelin
2020-06-23 11:53                                 ` Matan Azrad
2020-06-23 13:55                                   ` Maxime Coquelin [this message]
2020-06-23 14:33                                     ` Maxime Coquelin
2020-06-23 14:52                                     ` Matan Azrad
2020-06-23 15:18                                       ` Maxime Coquelin
2020-06-24  5:54                                         ` Matan Azrad
2020-06-24  7:22                                           ` Maxime Coquelin
2020-06-24  8:38                                             ` Matan Azrad
2020-06-24  9:12                                               ` Maxime Coquelin
2020-06-18 16:28 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 4/4] vdpa/mlx5: support queue update Matan Azrad
2020-06-25 13:38 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/5] vhost: improve ready state Matan Azrad
2020-06-25 13:38   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/5] vhost: skip access lock when vDPA is configured Matan Azrad
2020-06-28  3:06     ` Xia, Chenbo
2020-06-25 13:38   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/5] vhost: improve device readiness notifications Matan Azrad
2020-06-26 12:10     ` Maxime Coquelin
2020-06-28  3:08     ` Xia, Chenbo
2020-06-25 13:38   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/5] vhost: handle memory hotplug with vDPA devices Matan Azrad
2020-06-26 12:15     ` Maxime Coquelin
2020-06-28  3:18     ` Xia, Chenbo
2020-06-25 13:38   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 4/5] vhost: notify virtq file descriptor update Matan Azrad
2020-06-26 12:19     ` Maxime Coquelin
2020-06-28  3:19     ` Xia, Chenbo
2020-06-25 13:38   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 5/5] vdpa/mlx5: support queue update Matan Azrad
2020-06-26 12:29     ` Maxime Coquelin
2020-06-29 14:08   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/6] vhost: improve ready state Matan Azrad
2020-06-29 14:08     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/6] vhost: support host notifier queue configuration Matan Azrad
2020-06-29 14:08     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/6] vhost: skip access lock when vDPA is configured Matan Azrad
2020-06-29 14:08     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 3/6] vhost: improve device readiness notifications Matan Azrad
2020-06-29 14:08     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 4/6] vhost: handle memory hotplug with vDPA devices Matan Azrad
2020-06-29 14:08     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 5/6] vhost: notify virtq file descriptor update Matan Azrad
2020-06-29 14:08     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 6/6] vdpa/mlx5: support queue update Matan Azrad
2020-06-29 17:24     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/6] vhost: improve ready state Maxime Coquelin
2020-07-17  1:41       ` Wang, Yinan

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=7c6bd0b2-8657-3c34-ab1f-f397c39ea2ec@redhat.com \
    --to=maxime.coquelin@redhat.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=matan@mellanox.com \
    --cc=xiao.w.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

DPDK patches and discussions

This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone:

	git clone --mirror https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/0 dev/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 dev dev/ https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev \
		dev@dpdk.org
	public-inbox-index dev

Example config snippet for mirrors.
Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://inbox.dpdk.org/inbox.dpdk.dev


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git