Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 01/10] lib/librte_vhost: add external backend support

["Tan, Jianfeng" <jianfeng.tan@intel.com>]

It's interesting that we add some new APIs to be used by the 
lib/librte_vhost/ itself. I can understand as we planned to not put 
vhost crypto into the lib.

As vhost crypto is not a real "external backend", we could ask opinion 
of a real external backend if these are really necessary. pre and post 
message handlers would be OK. But do we really need register private 
data from external backend? @Changpeng @Pawel @Dariusz @Tomasz.

BTW, external backend sounds a little exclusive :-), does extended 
backend sound better?


On 3/26/2018 5:51 PM, Fan Zhang wrote:
> This patch adds external backend support to vhost library. The patch provides
> new APIs for the external backend to register private data, plus pre and post
> vhost-user message handlers.
>
> Signed-off-by: Fan Zhang <roy.fan.zhang@intel.com>
> ---
>   lib/librte_vhost/rte_vhost.h  | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>   lib/librte_vhost/vhost.c      | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++-
>   lib/librte_vhost/vhost.h      |  8 ++++++--
>   lib/librte_vhost/vhost_user.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>   4 files changed, 98 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/librte_vhost/rte_vhost.h b/lib/librte_vhost/rte_vhost.h
> index d332069..591b731 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_vhost/rte_vhost.h
> +++ b/lib/librte_vhost/rte_vhost.h
> @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
>   /* SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
> - * Copyright(c) 2010-2017 Intel Corporation
> + * Copyright(c) 2010-2018 Intel Corporation
>    */
>   
>   #ifndef _RTE_VHOST_H_
> @@ -88,6 +88,33 @@ struct vhost_device_ops {
>   };
>   
>   /**
> + * function prototype for external virtio device to handler device specific

handler -> handle

> + * vhost user messages
> + *
> + * @param extern_data
> + *  private data for external backend

There is not such parameter in below function type.

> + * @param msg
> + *  Message pointer
> + * @param payload
> + *  Message payload

Ditto.

> + * @param require_reply
> + *  If the handler requires sending a reply, this varaible shall be written 1,
> + *  otherwise 0
> + * @return
> + *  0 on success, -1 on failure
> + */
> +typedef int (*rte_vhost_msg_handler)(int vid, void *msg,
> +		uint32_t *require_reply);
> +
> +/**
> + * pre and post vhost user message handlers
> + */
> +struct rte_vhost_user_dev_extern_ops {

Considering the original vhost_device_ops, does vhost_user_extern_ops 
sound better?

> +	rte_vhost_msg_handler pre_vhost_user_msg_handler;
> +	rte_vhost_msg_handler post_vhost_user_msg_handler;
> +};
> +
> +/**
>    * Convert guest physical address to host virtual address
>    *
>    * @param mem
> @@ -434,6 +461,22 @@ int rte_vhost_vring_call(int vid, uint16_t vring_idx);
>    */
>   uint32_t rte_vhost_rx_queue_count(int vid, uint16_t qid);
>   
> +/**
> + * register external vhost backend
> + *
> + * @param vid
> + *  vhost device ID
> + * @param extern_data
> + *  private data for external backend
> + * @param ops
> + *  ops that process external vhost user messages
> + * @return
> + *  0 on success, -1 on failure
> + */
> +int
> +rte_vhost_user_register_extern_backend(int vid, void *extern_data,
> +		struct rte_vhost_user_dev_extern_ops *ops);

Considering the original rte_vhost_driver_callback_register, does 
rte_vhost_message_handler_register sound better?

For extern_data, as mentioned in the head, let's discuss if it's 
necessary to be registered through API.

> +
>   #ifdef __cplusplus
>   }
>   #endif
> diff --git a/lib/librte_vhost/vhost.c b/lib/librte_vhost/vhost.c
> index a407067..0932537 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_vhost/vhost.c
> +++ b/lib/librte_vhost/vhost.c
> @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
>   /* SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
> - * Copyright(c) 2010-2016 Intel Corporation
> + * Copyright(c) 2010-2018 Intel Corporation
>    */
>   
>   #include <linux/vhost.h>
> @@ -627,3 +627,24 @@ rte_vhost_rx_queue_count(int vid, uint16_t qid)
>   
>   	return *((volatile uint16_t *)&vq->avail->idx) - vq->last_avail_idx;
>   }
> +
> +int
> +rte_vhost_user_register_extern_backend(int vid, void *extern_data,
> +		struct rte_vhost_user_dev_extern_ops *ops)
> +{
> +	struct virtio_net *dev;

Do we want to rename this internal structure to something like 
vhost_dev, if it contains not only information for net?

> +
> +	dev = get_device(vid);
> +	if (dev == NULL)
> +		return -1;
> +
> +	dev->extern_data = extern_data;
> +	if (ops) {
> +		dev->extern_ops.pre_vhost_user_msg_handler =
> +				ops->pre_vhost_user_msg_handler;
> +		dev->extern_ops.post_vhost_user_msg_handler =
> +				ops->post_vhost_user_msg_handler;
> +	}
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> diff --git a/lib/librte_vhost/vhost.h b/lib/librte_vhost/vhost.h
> index d947bc9..6aaa46c 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_vhost/vhost.h
> +++ b/lib/librte_vhost/vhost.h
> @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
>   /* SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
> - * Copyright(c) 2010-2014 Intel Corporation
> + * Copyright(c) 2010-2018 Intel Corporation
>    */
>   
>   #ifndef _VHOST_NET_CDEV_H_
> @@ -241,8 +241,12 @@ struct virtio_net {
>   	struct guest_page       *guest_pages;
>   
>   	int			slave_req_fd;
> -} __rte_cache_aligned;
>   
> +	/* private data for external virtio device */
> +	void			*extern_data;
> +	/* pre and post vhost user message handlers for externel backend */
> +	struct rte_vhost_user_dev_extern_ops extern_ops;
> +} __rte_cache_aligned;
>   
>   #define VHOST_LOG_PAGE	4096
>   
> diff --git a/lib/librte_vhost/vhost_user.c b/lib/librte_vhost/vhost_user.c
> index 90ed211..c064cb3 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_vhost/vhost_user.c
> +++ b/lib/librte_vhost/vhost_user.c
> @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
>   /* SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
> - * Copyright(c) 2010-2016 Intel Corporation
> + * Copyright(c) 2010-2018 Intel Corporation
>    */
>   
>   #include <stdint.h>
> @@ -50,6 +50,8 @@ static const char *vhost_message_str[VHOST_USER_MAX] = {
>   	[VHOST_USER_NET_SET_MTU]  = "VHOST_USER_NET_SET_MTU",
>   	[VHOST_USER_SET_SLAVE_REQ_FD]  = "VHOST_USER_SET_SLAVE_REQ_FD",
>   	[VHOST_USER_IOTLB_MSG]  = "VHOST_USER_IOTLB_MSG",
> +	[VHOST_USER_CRYPTO_CREATE_SESS] = "VHOST_USER_CRYPTO_CREATE_SESS",
> +	[VHOST_USER_CRYPTO_CLOSE_SESS] = "VHOST_USER_CRYPTO_CLOSE_SESS",

Please leave this patch device agnostic. Put these into crypto related 
patches.

>   };
>   
>   static uint64_t
> @@ -1379,6 +1381,18 @@ vhost_user_msg_handler(int vid, int fd)
>   
>   	}
>   
> +	if (dev->extern_ops.pre_vhost_user_msg_handler) {
> +		uint32_t need_reply;
> +
> +		ret = (*dev->extern_ops.pre_vhost_user_msg_handler)(dev->vid,

We have a variable vid, why use dev->vid?

> +				(void *)&msg, &need_reply);
> +		if (ret < 0)
> +			goto skip_to_reply;
> +
> +		if (need_reply)
> +			send_vhost_reply(fd, &msg);

Do we have case that, if device handles that, we don't need to common 
handle and post handle below? In other words, how to handle overlapping 
of message handle?

> +	}
> +
>   	switch (msg.request.master) {
>   	case VHOST_USER_GET_FEATURES:
>   		msg.payload.u64 = vhost_user_get_features(dev);
> @@ -1477,11 +1491,20 @@ vhost_user_msg_handler(int vid, int fd)
>   		break;
>   
>   	default:
> -		ret = -1;
> -		break;
> +		if (dev->extern_ops.post_vhost_user_msg_handler) {

Do we allow overlapping of common and post handle?

> +			uint32_t need_reply;
>   
> +			ret = (*dev->extern_ops.post_vhost_user_msg_handler)(
> +					dev->vid, (void *)&msg, &need_reply);
> +
> +			if (need_reply)
> +				send_vhost_reply(fd, &msg);
> +		} else
> +			ret = -1;
> +		break;
>   	}
>   
> +skip_to_reply:
>   	if (unlock_required)
>   		vhost_user_unlock_all_queue_pairs(dev);
>