On 04.02.24 03:15, Raphael Norwitz wrote:
Someone else with more knowledge of the VQ mapping code should also review.
On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 4:55 PM David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com> wrote:
Currently, we try to remap all rings whenever we add a single new memory
region. That doesn't quite make sense, because we already map rings when
setting the ring address, and panic if that goes wrong. Likely, that
handling was simply copied from set_mem_table code, where we actually
have to remap all rings.
Remapping all rings might require us to walk quite a lot of memory
regions to perform the address translations. Ideally, we'd simply remove
that remapping.
However, let's be a bit careful. There might be some weird corner cases
where we might temporarily remove a single memory region (e.g., resize
it), that would have worked for now. Further, a ring might be located on
hotplugged memory, and as the VM reboots, we might unplug that memory, to
hotplug memory before resetting the ring addresses.
So let's unmap affected rings as we remove a memory region, and try
dynamically mapping the ring again when required.
Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com>
Acked-by: Raphael Norwitz <raph...@enfabrica.net>
Thanks!
---
subprojects/libvhost-user/libvhost-user.c | 107 ++++++++++++++++------
1 file changed, 78 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
diff --git a/subprojects/libvhost-user/libvhost-user.c
b/subprojects/libvhost-user/libvhost-user.c
index febeb2eb89..738e84ab63 100644
--- a/subprojects/libvhost-user/libvhost-user.c
+++ b/subprojects/libvhost-user/libvhost-user.c
@@ -283,10 +283,75 @@ vu_remove_all_mem_regs(VuDev *dev)
dev->nregions = 0;
}
+static bool
+map_ring(VuDev *dev, VuVirtq *vq)
+{
+ vq->vring.desc = qva_to_va(dev, vq->vra.desc_user_addr);
+ vq->vring.used = qva_to_va(dev, vq->vra.used_user_addr);
+ vq->vring.avail = qva_to_va(dev, vq->vra.avail_user_addr);
+
+ DPRINT("Setting virtq addresses:\n");
+ DPRINT(" vring_desc at %p\n", vq->vring.desc);
+ DPRINT(" vring_used at %p\n", vq->vring.used);
+ DPRINT(" vring_avail at %p\n", vq->vring.avail);
+
+ return !(vq->vring.desc && vq->vring.used && vq->vring.avail);
+}
+
static bool
Consider changing the function name to indicate that it may actually map a vq?
Maybe vu_maybe_map_vq()?
I don't think that would be really better. It's an implementation detial
that we try to recover in these corner cases by remapping the rings.
In the majority of all cases this function will simply check whether the
device is broken and the vring was set up properly (which usually
implies mapping the rings).
So I think in the caller:
if (!vu_is_vq_usable()) {
return;
}
is easier to get than:
if (!vu_maybe_map_vq()) {
return;
}
Thanks!
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
