DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>
To: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.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 09:02:19 +0000
Message-ID: <AM0PR0502MB4019CFC7F4A1DB8F467DD150D2940@AM0PR0502MB4019.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <da1dc4ba-e70a-c635-ec46-acf28e4a3cde@redhat.com>



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.

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).


> Thanks,
> Maxime
> 
> >
> >>> In addition it saves the style that already used in this function in:
> >>> - vhost_user_check_and_alloc_queue_pair
> >>> - 	switch (request) {
> >>> 	case VHOST_USER_SET_FEATURES:
> >>> 	case VHOST_USER_SET_PROTOCOL_FEATURES:
> >>> 	case VHOST_USER_SET_OWNER:
> >>> 	case VHOST_USER_SET_MEM_TABLE:
> >>> 	case VHOST_USER_SET_LOG_BASE:
> >>> 	case VHOST_USER_SET_LOG_FD:
> >>> 	case VHOST_USER_SET_VRING_NUM:
> >>> 	case VHOST_USER_SET_VRING_ADDR:
> >>> 	case VHOST_USER_SET_VRING_BASE:
> >>> 	case VHOST_USER_SET_VRING_KICK:
> >>> 	case VHOST_USER_SET_VRING_CALL:
> >>> 	case VHOST_USER_SET_VRING_ERR:
> >>> 	case VHOST_USER_SET_VRING_ENABLE:
> >>> 	case VHOST_USER_SEND_RARP:
> >>> 	case VHOST_USER_NET_SET_MTU:
> >>> 	case VHOST_USER_SET_SLAVE_REQ_FD:
> >>> 			vhost_user_lock_all_queue_pairs(dev);
> >>>
> >>> Matan
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >


  reply	other threads:[~2020-06-23  9:02 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 [this message]
2020-06-23  9:19                               ` Maxime Coquelin
2020-06-23 11:53                                 ` Matan Azrad
2020-06-23 13:55                                   ` Maxime Coquelin
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=AM0PR0502MB4019CFC7F4A1DB8F467DD150D2940@AM0PR0502MB4019.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com \
    --to=matan@mellanox.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=maxime.coquelin@redhat.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