On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 09:30:58AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> On 2019/9/19 下午11:45, Tiwei Bie wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 09:08:11PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > On 2019/9/18 下午10:32, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > > So I have some questions:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1) Compared to method 2, what's the advantage of creating a new
> > > > > > > vhost char
> > > > > > > device? I guess it's for keep the API compatibility?
> > > > > > One benefit is that we can avoid doing vhost ioctls on
> > > > > > VFIO device fd.
> > > > > Yes, but any benefit from doing this?
> > > > It does seem a bit more modular, but it's certainly not a big deal.
> > > Ok, if we go this way, it could be as simple as provide some callback to
> > > vhost, then vhost can just forward the ioctl through parent_ops.
> > >
> > > > > > > 2) For method 2, is there any easy way for user/admin to
> > > > > > > distinguish e.g
> > > > > > > ordinary vfio-mdev for vhost from ordinary vfio-mdev?
> > > > > > I think device-api could be a choice.
> > > > > Ok.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > I saw you introduce
> > > > > > > ops matching helper but it's not friendly to management.
> > > > > > The ops matching helper is just to check whether a given
> > > > > > vfio-device is based on a mdev device.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 3) A drawback of 1) and 2) is that it must follow vfio_device_ops
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > assumes the parameter comes from userspace, it prevents support
> > > > > > > kernel
> > > > > > > virtio drivers.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 4) So comes the idea of method 3, since it register a new
> > > > > > > vhost-mdev driver,
> > > > > > > we can use device specific ops instead of VFIO ones, then we can
> > > > > > > have a
> > > > > > > common API between vDPA parent and vhost-mdev/virtio-mdev drivers.
> > > > > > As the above draft shows, this requires introducing a new
> > > > > > VFIO device driver. I think Alex's opinion matters here.
> > > Just to clarify, a new type of mdev driver but provides dummy
> > > vfio_device_ops for VFIO to make container DMA ioctl work.
> > I see. Thanks! IIUC, you mean we can provide a very tiny
> > VFIO device driver in drivers/vhost/mdev.c, e.g.:
> >
> > static int vfio_vhost_mdev_open(void *device_data)
> > {
> > if (!try_module_get(THIS_MODULE))
> > return -ENODEV;
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > static void vfio_vhost_mdev_release(void *device_data)
> > {
> > module_put(THIS_MODULE);
> > }
> >
> > static const struct vfio_device_ops vfio_vhost_mdev_dev_ops = {
> > .name = "vfio-vhost-mdev",
> > .open = vfio_vhost_mdev_open,
> > .release = vfio_vhost_mdev_release,
> > };
> >
> > static int vhost_mdev_probe(struct device *dev)
> > {
> > struct mdev_device *mdev = to_mdev_device(dev);
> >
> > ... Check the mdev device_id proposed in ...
> > ... https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/9/12/151 ...
>
>
> To clarify, this should be done through the id_table fields in
> vhost_mdev_driver, and it should claim it supports virtio-mdev device only:
>
>
> static struct mdev_class_id id_table[] = {
> { MDEV_ID_VIRTIO },
> { 0 },
> };
>
>
> static struct mdev_driver vhost_mdev_driver = {
> ...
> .id_table = id_table,
> }
In this way, both of virtio-mdev and vhost-mdev will try to
take this device. We may want a way to let vhost-mdev take this
device only when users explicitly ask it to do it. Or maybe we
can have a different MDEV_ID for vhost-mdev but share the device
ops with virtio-mdev.
>
>
> >
> > return vfio_add_group_dev(dev, &vfio_vhost_mdev_dev_ops, mdev);
>
>
> And in vfio_vhost_mdev_ops, all its need is to just implement vhost-net
> ioctl and translate them to virtio-mdev transport (e.g device_ops I proposed
> or ioctls other whatever other method) API.
I see, so my previous understanding is basically correct:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/9/17/332
I.e. we won't have a separate vhost fd and we will do all vhost
ioctls on the VFIO device fd backed by this new VFIO driver.
> And it could have a dummy ops
> implementation for the other device_ops.
>
>
> > }
> >
> > static void vhost_mdev_remove(struct device *dev)
> > {
> > vfio_del_group_dev(dev);
> > }
> >
> > static struct mdev_driver vhost_mdev_driver = {
> > .name = "vhost_mdev",
> > .probe = vhost_mdev_probe,
> > .remove = vhost_mdev_remove,
> > };
> >
> > So we can bind above mdev driver to the virtio-mdev compatible
> > mdev devices when we want to use vhost-mdev.
> >
> > After binding above driver to the mdev device, we can setup IOMMU
> > via VFIO and get VFIO device fd of this mdev device, and pass it
> > to vhost fd (/dev/vhost-mdev) with a SET_BACKEND ioctl.
>
>
> Then what vhost-mdev char device did is just forwarding ioctl back to this
> vfio device fd which seems a overkill. It's simpler that just do ioctl on
> the device ops directly.
Yes.
Thanks,
Tiwei
>
> Thanks
>
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Tiwei
> >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Yes, it is.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > >
> > > > >
