------- Original Message -------
Sender : Flavio Leitner<fbl at sysclose.org>
Date : Apr 06, 2016 07:14 (GMT+03:00)
Title : Re: [RFC] vhost-user public struct refactor (was Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH
RFC 2/4] vhost: make buf vector for scatter RX) local.
On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:47:33PM +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 03:06:50PM +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 09:32:41AM +0300, Ilya Maximets wrote:
> > > Array of buf_vector's is just an array for temporary storing information
> > > about available descriptors. It used only locally in virtio_dev_merge_rx()
> > > and there is no reason for that array to be shared.
> > >
> > > Fix that by allocating local buf_vec inside virtio_dev_merge_rx().
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Ilya Maximets
> > > ---
> > > lib/librte_vhost/rte_virtio_net.h | 1 -
> > > lib/librte_vhost/vhost_rxtx.c | 45
> > > ++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> > > 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/lib/librte_vhost/rte_virtio_net.h
> > > b/lib/librte_vhost/rte_virtio_net.h
> > > index 10dcb90..ae1e4fb 100644
> > > --- a/lib/librte_vhost/rte_virtio_net.h
> > > +++ b/lib/librte_vhost/rte_virtio_net.h
> > > @@ -91,7 +91,6 @@ struct vhost_virtqueue {
> > > int kickfd; /**< Currently unused as polling mode is enabled. */
> > > int enabled;
> > > uint64_t reserved[16]; /**< Reserve some spaces for future extension. */
> > > - struct buf_vector buf_vec[BUF_VECTOR_MAX]; /**< for scatter RX. */
> > > } __rte_cache_aligned;
> >
> > I like this kind of cleanup, however, it breaks ABI.
>
> So, I was considering to add vhost-user Tx delayed-copy (or zero copy)
> support recently, which comes to yet another ABI violation, as we need
> add a new field to virtio_memory_regions struct to do guest phys addr
> to host phys addr translation. You may ask, however, that why do we need
> expose virtio_memory_regions struct to users at all?
>
> You are right, we don't have to. And here is the thing: we exposed way
> too many fields (or even structures) than necessary. Say, vhost_virtqueue
> struct should NOT be exposed to user at all: application just need to
> tell the right queue id to locate a specific queue, and that's all.
> The structure should be defined in an internal header file. With that,
> we could do any changes to it we want, without worrying about that we
> may offense the painful ABI rules.
>
> Similar changes could be done to virtio_net struct as well, just exposing
> very few fields that are necessary and moving all others to an internal
> structure.
>
> Huawei then suggested a more radical yet much cleaner one: just exposing
> a virtio_net handle to application, just like the way kernel exposes an
> fd to user for locating a specific file. However, it's more than an ABI
> change; it's also an API change: some fields are referenced by applications,
> such as flags, virt_qp_nb. We could expose some new functions to access
> them though.
>
> I'd vote for this one, as it sounds very clean to me. This would also
> solve the block issue of this patch. Though it would break OVS, I'm thinking
> that'd be okay, as OVS has dependence on DPDK version: what we need to
> do is just to send few patches to OVS, and let it points to next release,
> say DPDK v16.07. Flavio, please correct me if I'm wrong.
> There is a plan to use vHost PMD, so from OVS point of view the virtio
> stuff would be hidden because vhost PMD would look like just as a
> regular ethernet, right?
But we still need to have access to virtqueue_enabe/disable notifications to
work properly. How this will be done if virtqueue will be hidden from user?
Best regards, Ilya Maximets.
