On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 11:51:03AM +0800, zhenwei pi wrote:
>
>
> On 5/17/23 11:46, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 10:54:22AM +0800, zhenwei pi wrote:
> > > v1 -> v2:
> > > - Suggested by MST, use fast path for vring based performance
> > > sensitive API.
> > > - Reduce changes in tools/virtio.
> > >
> > > Add test result(no obvious change):
> > > Before:
> > > time ./vringh_test --parallel
> > > Using CPUS 0 and 191
> > > Guest: notified 10036893, pinged 68278
> > > Host: notified 68278, pinged 3093532
> > >
> > > real 0m14.463s
> > > user 0m6.437s
> > > sys 0m8.010s
> > >
> > > After:
> > > time ./vringh_test --parallel
> > > Using CPUS 0 and 191
> > > Guest: notified 10036709, pinged 68347
> > > Host: notified 68347, pinged 3085292
> > >
> > > real 0m14.196s
> > > user 0m6.289s
> > > sys 0m7.885s
> > >
> > > v1:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > 3 weeks ago, I posted a proposal 'Virtio Over Fabrics':
> > > https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/virtio-comment/202304/msg00442.html
> > >
> > > Jason and Stefan pointed out that a non-vring based virtqueue has a
> > > chance to overwrite virtqueue instead of using vring virtqueue.
> > >
> > > Then I try to abstract virtqueue related methods in this series, the
> > > details changes see the comment of patch 'virtio: abstract virtqueue related methods'.
> > >
> > > Something is still remained:
> > > - __virtqueue_break/__virtqueue_unbreak is supposed to use by internal
> > > virtio core, I'd like to rename them to vring_virtqueue_break
> > > /vring_virtqueue_unbreak. Is this reasonable?
> >
> > Why? These just set a flag?
> >
>
> Rename '__virtqueue_break' to 'vring_virtqueue_break', to make symbols
> exported from virtio_ring.ko have unified prefix 'vring_virtqueue_xxx'.
I just do not see why you need these callbacks at all.
> > > - virtqueue_get_desc_addr/virtqueue_get_avail_addr/virtqueue_get_used_addr
> > > /virtqueue_get_vring is vring specific, I'd like to rename them like
> > > vring_virtqueue_get_desc_addr. Is this reasonable?
> > > - there are still some functions in virtio_ring.c with prefix *virtqueue*,
> > > for example 'virtqueue_add_split', just keep it or rename it to
> > > 'vring_virtqueue_add_split'?
> > > zhenwei pi (2):
> > > virtio: abstract virtqueue related methods
> > > tools/virtio: implement virtqueue in test
> > >
> > > drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c | 285 +++++-----------------
> > > include/linux/virtio.h | 441 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> > > include/linux/virtio_ring.h | 26 +++
> > > tools/virtio/linux/virtio.h | 355 +++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> > > 4 files changed, 807 insertions(+), 300 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > --
> > > 2.20.1
> >
>
> --
> zhenwei pi
On 5/17/23 11:57, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 11:51:03AM +0800, zhenwei pi wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 5/17/23 11:46, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 10:54:22AM +0800, zhenwei pi wrote:
>>>> v1 -> v2:
>>>> - Suggested by MST, use fast path for vring based performance
>>>> sensitive API.
>>>> - Reduce changes in tools/virtio.
>>>>
>>>> Add test result(no obvious change):
>>>> Before:
>>>> time ./vringh_test --parallel
>>>> Using CPUS 0 and 191
>>>> Guest: notified 10036893, pinged 68278
>>>> Host: notified 68278, pinged 3093532
>>>>
>>>> real 0m14.463s
>>>> user 0m6.437s
>>>> sys 0m8.010s
>>>>
>>>> After:
>>>> time ./vringh_test --parallel
>>>> Using CPUS 0 and 191
>>>> Guest: notified 10036709, pinged 68347
>>>> Host: notified 68347, pinged 3085292
>>>>
>>>> real 0m14.196s
>>>> user 0m6.289s
>>>> sys 0m7.885s
>>>>
>>>> v1:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> 3 weeks ago, I posted a proposal 'Virtio Over Fabrics':
>>>> https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/virtio-comment/202304/msg00442.html
>>>>
>>>> Jason and Stefan pointed out that a non-vring based virtqueue has a
>>>> chance to overwrite virtqueue instead of using vring virtqueue.
>>>>
>>>> Then I try to abstract virtqueue related methods in this series, the
>>>> details changes see the comment of patch 'virtio: abstract virtqueue related methods'.
>>>>
>>>> Something is still remained:
>>>> - __virtqueue_break/__virtqueue_unbreak is supposed to use by internal
>>>> virtio core, I'd like to rename them to vring_virtqueue_break
>>>> /vring_virtqueue_unbreak. Is this reasonable?
>>>
>>> Why? These just set a flag?
>>>
>>
>> Rename '__virtqueue_break' to 'vring_virtqueue_break', to make symbols
>> exported from virtio_ring.ko have unified prefix 'vring_virtqueue_xxx'.
>
> I just do not see why you need these callbacks at all.
>
I use these callbacks for break/unbreak device like:
static inline void virtio_break_device(struct virtio_device *dev)
{
struct virtqueue *vq;
spin_lock(&dev->vqs_list_lock);
list_for_each_entry(vq, &dev->vqs, list) {
vq->__break(vq);
}
spin_unlock(&dev->vqs_list_lock);
}
>>>> - virtqueue_get_desc_addr/virtqueue_get_avail_addr/virtqueue_get_used_addr
>>>> /virtqueue_get_vring is vring specific, I'd like to rename them like
>>>> vring_virtqueue_get_desc_addr. Is this reasonable?
>>>> - there are still some functions in virtio_ring.c with prefix *virtqueue*,
>>>> for example 'virtqueue_add_split', just keep it or rename it to
>>>> 'vring_virtqueue_add_split'?
>>>> zhenwei pi (2):
>>>> virtio: abstract virtqueue related methods
>>>> tools/virtio: implement virtqueue in test
>>>>
>>>> drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c | 285 +++++-----------------
>>>> include/linux/virtio.h | 441 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>>>> include/linux/virtio_ring.h | 26 +++
>>>> tools/virtio/linux/virtio.h | 355 +++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>>>> 4 files changed, 807 insertions(+), 300 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 2.20.1
>>>
>>
>> --
>> zhenwei pi
>
--
zhenwei pi
On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 12:58:10PM +0800, zhenwei pi wrote:
> On 5/17/23 11:57, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 11:51:03AM +0800, zhenwei pi wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 5/17/23 11:46, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 10:54:22AM +0800, zhenwei pi wrote:
> > > > > v1 -> v2:
> > > > > - Suggested by MST, use fast path for vring based performance
> > > > > sensitive API.
> > > > > - Reduce changes in tools/virtio.
> > > > >
> > > > > Add test result(no obvious change):
> > > > > Before:
> > > > > time ./vringh_test --parallel
> > > > > Using CPUS 0 and 191
> > > > > Guest: notified 10036893, pinged 68278
> > > > > Host: notified 68278, pinged 3093532
> > > > >
> > > > > real 0m14.463s
> > > > > user 0m6.437s
> > > > > sys 0m8.010s
> > > > >
> > > > > After:
> > > > > time ./vringh_test --parallel
> > > > > Using CPUS 0 and 191
> > > > > Guest: notified 10036709, pinged 68347
> > > > > Host: notified 68347, pinged 3085292
> > > > >
> > > > > real 0m14.196s
> > > > > user 0m6.289s
> > > > > sys 0m7.885s
> > > > >
> > > > > v1:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > 3 weeks ago, I posted a proposal 'Virtio Over Fabrics':
> > > > > https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/virtio-comment/202304/msg00442.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Jason and Stefan pointed out that a non-vring based virtqueue has a
> > > > > chance to overwrite virtqueue instead of using vring virtqueue.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then I try to abstract virtqueue related methods in this series, the
> > > > > details changes see the comment of patch 'virtio: abstract virtqueue related methods'.
> > > > >
> > > > > Something is still remained:
> > > > > - __virtqueue_break/__virtqueue_unbreak is supposed to use by internal
> > > > > virtio core, I'd like to rename them to vring_virtqueue_break
> > > > > /vring_virtqueue_unbreak. Is this reasonable?
> > > >
> > > > Why? These just set a flag?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Rename '__virtqueue_break' to 'vring_virtqueue_break', to make symbols
> > > exported from virtio_ring.ko have unified prefix 'vring_virtqueue_xxx'.
> >
> > I just do not see why you need these callbacks at all.
> >
>
> I use these callbacks for break/unbreak device like:
> static inline void virtio_break_device(struct virtio_device *dev)
> {
> struct virtqueue *vq;
>
> spin_lock(&dev->vqs_list_lock);
> list_for_each_entry(vq, &dev->vqs, list) {
> vq->__break(vq);
> }
> spin_unlock(&dev->vqs_list_lock);
> }
why do this? backend knows they are broken.
> > > > > - virtqueue_get_desc_addr/virtqueue_get_avail_addr/virtqueue_get_used_addr
> > > > > /virtqueue_get_vring is vring specific, I'd like to rename them like
> > > > > vring_virtqueue_get_desc_addr. Is this reasonable?
> > > > > - there are still some functions in virtio_ring.c with prefix *virtqueue*,
> > > > > for example 'virtqueue_add_split', just keep it or rename it to
> > > > > 'vring_virtqueue_add_split'?
> > > > > zhenwei pi (2):
> > > > > virtio: abstract virtqueue related methods
> > > > > tools/virtio: implement virtqueue in test
> > > > >
> > > > > drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c | 285 +++++-----------------
> > > > > include/linux/virtio.h | 441 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> > > > > include/linux/virtio_ring.h | 26 +++
> > > > > tools/virtio/linux/virtio.h | 355 +++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> > > > > 4 files changed, 807 insertions(+), 300 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > 2.20.1
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > zhenwei pi
> >
>
> --
> zhenwei pi
On 5/17/23 14:10, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 12:58:10PM +0800, zhenwei pi wrote:
>> On 5/17/23 11:57, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 11:51:03AM +0800, zhenwei pi wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 5/17/23 11:46, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 10:54:22AM +0800, zhenwei pi wrote:
>>>>>> v1 -> v2:
>>>>>> - Suggested by MST, use fast path for vring based performance
>>>>>> sensitive API.
>>>>>> - Reduce changes in tools/virtio.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Add test result(no obvious change):
>>>>>> Before:
>>>>>> time ./vringh_test --parallel
>>>>>> Using CPUS 0 and 191
>>>>>> Guest: notified 10036893, pinged 68278
>>>>>> Host: notified 68278, pinged 3093532
>>>>>>
>>>>>> real 0m14.463s
>>>>>> user 0m6.437s
>>>>>> sys 0m8.010s
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After:
>>>>>> time ./vringh_test --parallel
>>>>>> Using CPUS 0 and 191
>>>>>> Guest: notified 10036709, pinged 68347
>>>>>> Host: notified 68347, pinged 3085292
>>>>>>
>>>>>> real 0m14.196s
>>>>>> user 0m6.289s
>>>>>> sys 0m7.885s
>>>>>>
>>>>>> v1:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3 weeks ago, I posted a proposal 'Virtio Over Fabrics':
>>>>>> https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/virtio-comment/202304/msg00442.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jason and Stefan pointed out that a non-vring based virtqueue has a
>>>>>> chance to overwrite virtqueue instead of using vring virtqueue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then I try to abstract virtqueue related methods in this series, the
>>>>>> details changes see the comment of patch 'virtio: abstract virtqueue related methods'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Something is still remained:
>>>>>> - __virtqueue_break/__virtqueue_unbreak is supposed to use by internal
>>>>>> virtio core, I'd like to rename them to vring_virtqueue_break
>>>>>> /vring_virtqueue_unbreak. Is this reasonable?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why? These just set a flag?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rename '__virtqueue_break' to 'vring_virtqueue_break', to make symbols
>>>> exported from virtio_ring.ko have unified prefix 'vring_virtqueue_xxx'.
>>>
>>> I just do not see why you need these callbacks at all.
>>>
>>
>> I use these callbacks for break/unbreak device like:
>> static inline void virtio_break_device(struct virtio_device *dev)
>> {
>> struct virtqueue *vq;
>>
>> spin_lock(&dev->vqs_list_lock);
>> list_for_each_entry(vq, &dev->vqs, list) {
>> vq->__break(vq);
>> }
>> spin_unlock(&dev->vqs_list_lock);
>> }
>
> why do this? backend knows they are broken.
>
I grep 'virtio_break_device' in the latest code:
arch/um/drivers/virtio_uml.c:1147: virtio_break_device(&vu_dev->vdev);
arch/um/drivers/virtio_uml.c:1285: virtio_break_device(&vu_dev->vdev);
drivers/crypto/virtio/virtio_crypto_core.c:269:
virtio_break_device(vcrypto->vdev);
drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c:1251: virtio_break_device(&vcdev->vdev);
drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c:1268: virtio_break_device(&vcdev->vdev);
drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/virtio.c:489:
virtio_break_device(vioch->vqueue->vdev);
drivers/char/virtio_console.c:1956: virtio_break_device(vdev);
Some virtio drivers use 'virtio_break_device'...
>>>>>> - virtqueue_get_desc_addr/virtqueue_get_avail_addr/virtqueue_get_used_addr
>>>>>> /virtqueue_get_vring is vring specific, I'd like to rename them like
>>>>>> vring_virtqueue_get_desc_addr. Is this reasonable?
>>>>>> - there are still some functions in virtio_ring.c with prefix *virtqueue*,
>>>>>> for example 'virtqueue_add_split', just keep it or rename it to
>>>>>> 'vring_virtqueue_add_split'?
>>>>>> zhenwei pi (2):
>>>>>> virtio: abstract virtqueue related methods
>>>>>> tools/virtio: implement virtqueue in test
>>>>>>
>>>>>> drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c | 285 +++++-----------------
>>>>>> include/linux/virtio.h | 441 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>>>>>> include/linux/virtio_ring.h | 26 +++
>>>>>> tools/virtio/linux/virtio.h | 355 +++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>>>>>> 4 files changed, 807 insertions(+), 300 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> 2.20.1
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> zhenwei pi
>>>
>>
>> --
>> zhenwei pi
>
--
zhenwei pi
On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 02:21:09PM +0800, zhenwei pi wrote:
> On 5/17/23 14:10, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 12:58:10PM +0800, zhenwei pi wrote:
> > > On 5/17/23 11:57, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 11:51:03AM +0800, zhenwei pi wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 5/17/23 11:46, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 10:54:22AM +0800, zhenwei pi wrote:
> > > > > > > v1 -> v2:
> > > > > > > - Suggested by MST, use fast path for vring based performance
> > > > > > > sensitive API.
> > > > > > > - Reduce changes in tools/virtio.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Add test result(no obvious change):
> > > > > > > Before:
> > > > > > > time ./vringh_test --parallel
> > > > > > > Using CPUS 0 and 191
> > > > > > > Guest: notified 10036893, pinged 68278
> > > > > > > Host: notified 68278, pinged 3093532
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > real 0m14.463s
> > > > > > > user 0m6.437s
> > > > > > > sys 0m8.010s
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > After:
> > > > > > > time ./vringh_test --parallel
> > > > > > > Using CPUS 0 and 191
> > > > > > > Guest: notified 10036709, pinged 68347
> > > > > > > Host: notified 68347, pinged 3085292
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > real 0m14.196s
> > > > > > > user 0m6.289s
> > > > > > > sys 0m7.885s
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > v1:
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 3 weeks ago, I posted a proposal 'Virtio Over Fabrics':
> > > > > > > https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/virtio-comment/202304/msg00442.html
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jason and Stefan pointed out that a non-vring based virtqueue has a
> > > > > > > chance to overwrite virtqueue instead of using vring virtqueue.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Then I try to abstract virtqueue related methods in this series, the
> > > > > > > details changes see the comment of patch 'virtio: abstract virtqueue related methods'.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Something is still remained:
> > > > > > > - __virtqueue_break/__virtqueue_unbreak is supposed to use by internal
> > > > > > > virtio core, I'd like to rename them to vring_virtqueue_break
> > > > > > > /vring_virtqueue_unbreak. Is this reasonable?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why? These just set a flag?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Rename '__virtqueue_break' to 'vring_virtqueue_break', to make symbols
> > > > > exported from virtio_ring.ko have unified prefix 'vring_virtqueue_xxx'.
> > > >
> > > > I just do not see why you need these callbacks at all.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I use these callbacks for break/unbreak device like:
> > > static inline void virtio_break_device(struct virtio_device *dev)
> > > {
> > > struct virtqueue *vq;
> > >
> > > spin_lock(&dev->vqs_list_lock);
> > > list_for_each_entry(vq, &dev->vqs, list) {
> > > vq->__break(vq);
> > > }
> > > spin_unlock(&dev->vqs_list_lock);
> > > }
> >
> > why do this? backend knows they are broken.
> >
>
> I grep 'virtio_break_device' in the latest code:
> arch/um/drivers/virtio_uml.c:1147: virtio_break_device(&vu_dev->vdev);
> arch/um/drivers/virtio_uml.c:1285: virtio_break_device(&vu_dev->vdev);
> drivers/crypto/virtio/virtio_crypto_core.c:269:
> virtio_break_device(vcrypto->vdev);
> drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c:1251: virtio_break_device(&vcdev->vdev);
> drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c:1268: virtio_break_device(&vcdev->vdev);
> drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/virtio.c:489:
> virtio_break_device(vioch->vqueue->vdev);
> drivers/char/virtio_console.c:1956: virtio_break_device(vdev);
>
> Some virtio drivers use 'virtio_break_device'...
You should read the code and understand what it does,
not just grep things and make assumptions.
What virtio_break_device does is stop linux from sending
new requests.
> > > > > > > - virtqueue_get_desc_addr/virtqueue_get_avail_addr/virtqueue_get_used_addr
> > > > > > > /virtqueue_get_vring is vring specific, I'd like to rename them like
> > > > > > > vring_virtqueue_get_desc_addr. Is this reasonable?
> > > > > > > - there are still some functions in virtio_ring.c with prefix *virtqueue*,
> > > > > > > for example 'virtqueue_add_split', just keep it or rename it to
> > > > > > > 'vring_virtqueue_add_split'?
> > > > > > > zhenwei pi (2):
> > > > > > > virtio: abstract virtqueue related methods
> > > > > > > tools/virtio: implement virtqueue in test
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c | 285 +++++-----------------
> > > > > > > include/linux/virtio.h | 441 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> > > > > > > include/linux/virtio_ring.h | 26 +++
> > > > > > > tools/virtio/linux/virtio.h | 355 +++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> > > > > > > 4 files changed, 807 insertions(+), 300 deletions(-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > 2.20.1
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > zhenwei pi
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > zhenwei pi
> >
>
> --
> zhenwei pi