On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 05:30:53PM +0200, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
>
>
> On 09/28/2016 04:28 AM, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:56:40PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 11:11:58AM +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 10:24:55PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 11:01:58AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > > > > > I assume that if using Version 1 that the bit will be ignored
> > > >
> > > > Yes, but I will just quote what you just said: what if the guest
> > > > virtio device is a legacy device? I also gave my reasons in another
> > > > email why I consistently set this flag:
> > > >
> > > > - we have to return all features we support to the guest.
> > > >
> > > > We don't know the guest is a modern or legacy device. That means
> > > > we should claim we support both: VERSION_1 and ANY_LAYOUT.
> > > >
> > > > Assume guest is a legacy device and we just set VERSION_1 (the
> > > > current
> > > > case), ANY_LAYOUT will never be negotiated.
> > > >
> > > > - I'm following the way Linux kernel takes: it also set both features.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe, we could unset ANY_LAYOUT when VERSION_1 is _negotiated_?
> > > >
> > > > The unset after negotiation I proposed turned out it won't work: the
> > > > feature is already negotiated; unsetting it only in vhost side doesn't
> > > > change anything. Besides, it may break the migration as Michael stated
> > > > below.
> > >
> > > I think the reverse. Teach vhost user that for future machine types
> > > only VERSION_1 implies ANY_LAYOUT.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Therein lies a problem. If dpdk tweaks flags, updating it
> > > > > will break guest migration.
> > > > >
> > > > > One way is to require that users specify all flags fully when
> > > > > creating the virtio net device.
> > > >
> > > > Like how? By a new command line option? And user has to type
> > > > all those features?
> > >
> > > Make libvirt do this. users use management normally. those that don't
> > > likely don't migrate VMs.
> >
> > Fair enough.
> >
> > >
> > > > > QEMU could verify that all required
> > > > > flags are set, and fail init if not.
> > > > >
> > > > > This has other advantages, e.g. it adds ability to
> > > > > init device without waiting for dpdk to connect.
> >
> > Will the feature negotiation between DPDK and QEMU still exist
> > in your proposal?
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > However, enabling each new feature would now require
> > > > > management work. How about dpdk ships the list
> > > > > of supported features instead?
> > > > > Management tools could read them on source and destination
> > > > > and select features supported on both sides.
> > > >
> > > > That means the management tool would somehow has a dependency on
> > > > DPDK project, which I have no objection at all. But, is that
> > > > a good idea?
> > >
> > > It already starts the bridge somehow, does it not?
> >
> > Indeed. I was firstly thinking about reading the dpdk source file
> > to determine the DPDK supported feature list, with which the bind
> > is too tight. I later realized you may ask DPDK to provide a binary
> > to dump the list, or something like that.
> >
> > >
> > > > BTW, I'm not quite sure I followed your idea. I mean, how it supposed
> > > > to fix the ANY_LAYOUT issue here? How this flag will be set for
> > > > legacy device?
> > > >
> > > > --yliu
> > >
> > > For ANY_LAYOUT, I think we should just set in in qemu,
> > > but only for new machine types.
> >
> > What do you mean by "new machine types"? Virtio device with newer
> > virtio-spec version?
> >
> > > This addresses migration
> > > concerns.
> >
> > To make sure I followed you, do you mean the migration issue from
> > an older "dpdk + qemu" combo to a newer "dpdk + qemu" combo (that
> > more new features might be shipped)?
> >
> > Besides that, your proposal looks like a big work to accomplish.
> > Are you okay to make it simple first: set it consistently like
> > what Linux kernel does? This would at least make the ANY_LAYOUT
> > actually be enabled for legacy device (which is also the default
> > one that's widely used so far).
>
> Before enabling anything by default, we should first optimize the 1 slot
> case. Indeed, micro-benchmark using testpmd in txonly[0] shows ~17%
> perf regression for 64 bytes case:
> - 2 descs per packet: 11.6Mpps
> - 1 desc per packet: 9.6Mpps
>
> This is due to the virtio header clearing in virtqueue_enqueue_xmit().
> Removing it, we get better results than with 2 descs (1.20Mpps).
> Since the Virtio PMD doesn't support offloads, I wonder whether we can
> just drop the memset?
What will happen? Will the header be uninitialized?
The spec says:
The driver can send a completely checksummed packet. In this case, flags
will be zero, and gso_type
will be VIRTIO_NET_HDR_GSO_NONE.
and
The driver MUST set num_buffers to zero.
If VIRTIO_NET_F_CSUM is not negotiated, the driver MUST set flags to
zero and SHOULD supply a fully
checksummed packet to the device.
and
If none of the VIRTIO_NET_F_HOST_TSO4, TSO6 or UFO options have been
negotiated, the driver MUST
set gso_type to VIRTIO_NET_HDR_GSO_NONE.
so doing this unconditionally would be a spec violation, but if you see
value in this, we can add a feature bit.
> -- Maxime
> [0]: For testing, you'll need these patches, else only first packets
> will use a single slot:
> - http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/16222/
> - http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/16223/
