On 11/15/2017 09:26 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 11:47:58AM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
On 11/15/2017 05:21 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 08:02:03PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
On 11/14/2017 01:32 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
- guest2host_cmd: written by the guest to ACK to the host about the
commands that have been received. The host will clear the corresponding
bits on the host2guest_cmd register. The guest also uses this register
to send commands to the host (e.g. when finish free page reporting).
I am not sure what is the role of guest2host_cmd. Reporting of
the correct cmd id seems sufficient indication that guest
received the start command. Not getting any more seems sufficient
to detect stop.
I think the issue is when the host is waiting for the guest to report pages,
it does not know whether the guest is going to report more or the report is
done already. That's why we need a way to let the guest tell the host "the
report is done, don't wait for more", then the host continues to the next
step - sending the non-free pages to the destination. The following method
is a conclusion of other comments, with some new thought. Please have a
check if it is good.
config won't work well for this IMHO.
Writes to config register are hard to synchronize with the VQ.
For example, guest sends free pages, host says stop, meanwhile
guest sends stop for 1st set of pages.
I still don't see an issue with this. Please see below:
(before jumping into the discussion, just make sure I've well explained this
point: now host-to-guest commands are done via config, and guest-to-host
commands are done via the free page vq)
This is fine by me actually. But right now you have guest to host
not going through vq, going through command register instead -
this is how sending stop to host seems to happen.
If you make it go through vq then I think all will be well.
Case: Host starts to request the reporting with cmd_id=1. Some time later,
Host writes "stop" to config, meantime guest happens to finish the reporting
and plan to actively send a "stop" command from the free_page_vq().
Essentially, this is like a sync between two threads - if we view
the config interrupt handler as one thread, another is the free page
reporting worker thread.
- what the config handler does is simply:
1.1: WRITE_ONCE(vb->reporting_stop, true);
- what the reporting thread will do is
2.1: WRITE_ONCE(vb->reporting_stop, true);
2.2: send_stop_to_host_via_vq();
From the guest point of view, no matter 1.1 is executed first or 2.1 first,
it doesn't make a difference to the end result - vb->reporting_stop is set.
From the host point of view, it knows that cmd_id=1 has truly stopped the
reporting when it receives a "stop" sign via the vq.
How about adding a buffer with "stop" in the VQ instead?
Wastes a VQ entry which you will need to reserve for this
but is it a big deal?
The free page vq is guest-to-host direction.
Yes, for guest to host stop sign.
Using it for host-to-guest
requests will make it bidirectional, which will result in the same issue
described before: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/10/11/1009 (the first response)
On the other hand, I think adding another new vq for host-to-guest
requesting doesn't make a difference in essence, compared to using config
(same 1.1, 2.1, 2.2 above), but will be more complicated.
I agree with this. Host to guest can just incremenent the "free command id"
register.
OK, thanks for the suggestions. I think one more issue left here:
Previously, when the guest receives a config interrupt, it blindly adds
the balloon work item to the workqueue in virtballoon_changed(), because
only ballooning uses the config.
Now, free page reporting is requested via config, too.
We have the following two options:
Option 1: add "diff = towards_target()" to virtballoon_changed(), and if
diff = 0, it will not add the balloon work item to the wq.
Option 2: add "cmd" for the host-to-guest request, and add the item when
"cmd | CMD_BALLOON" is true.
I'm inclined to take option 1 now. Which one would you prefer?
Best,
Wei
