On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 08:15:15PM +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 01:07:11PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 05:13:50PM +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 12:18:38PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 02:25:41PM +0800, Ouyang Changchun wrote:
> > > > > Based on patch by Nikolay Nikolaev:
> > > > > Vhost-user will implement the multi queue support in a similar way
> > > > > to what vhost already has - a separate thread for each queue.
> > > > > To enable the multi queue functionality - a new command line parameter
> > > > > "queues" is introduced for the vhost-user netdev.
> > > > >
> > > > > The RESET_OWNER change is based on commit:
> > > > > 294ce717e0f212ed0763307f3eab72b4a1bdf4d0
> > > > > If it is reverted, the patch need update for it accordingly.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Nikolay Nikolaev <n.nikol...@virtualopensystems.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Changchun Ouyang <changchun.ouy...@intel.com>
> > > [snip...]
> > > > > @@ -198,7 +203,7 @@ Message types
> > > > >
> > > > > Id: 4
> > > > > Equivalent ioctl: VHOST_RESET_OWNER
> > > > > - Master payload: N/A
> > > > > + Master payload: vring state description
> > > > >
> > > > > Issued when a new connection is about to be closed. The Master
> > > > > will no
> > > > > longer own this connection (and will usually close it).
> > > >
> > > > This is an interface change, isn't it?
> > > > We can't make it unconditionally, need to make it dependent
> > > > on a protocol flag.
> > >
> > > Hi Michael,
> > >
> > > I'm wondering why we need a payload here, as we don't do that for
> > > VHOST_SET_OWNER. I mean, stopping one or few queue pairs when a
> > > connect is about to be close doesn't make sense to me. Instead,
> > > we should clean up all queue pair when VHOST_RESET_OWNER message
> > > is received, right?
> >
> > We really should rename VHOST_RESET_OWNER to VHOST_RESET_DEVICE.
>
> Yeah, second that.
>
> BTW, can we simply do the name convertion, just changing VHOST_RESET_OWNER
> to VHOST_RESET_DEVICE(or VHOST_STOP_DEVICE). I guess it's doable in
> theory as far as we don't change the number. I somehow feel it's not a
> good practice.
I think just renaming is fine, we are not changing the protocol
at all.
> Maybe we could make it as a new vhost message, and mark the old one
> as obsolete? That doesn't sound perfect, either, as it reserves a number
> for a message we will not use any more.
>
> Also, we may rename VHOST_SET_OWNER to VHOST_INIT_DEVICE?
I think VHOST_SET_OWNER specified who's the master?
> > And I agree, I don't think it needs a payload.
>
> Good to know.
>
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/hw/net/vhost_net.c b/hw/net/vhost_net.c
> > > > > index 1f25cb3..9cd6c05 100644
> > > > > --- a/hw/net/vhost_net.c
> > > > > +++ b/hw/net/vhost_net.c
> > > [snip...]
> > > > > static int net_vhost_user_init(NetClientState *peer, const char
> > > > > *device,
> > > > > - const char *name, CharDriverState
> > > > > *chr)
> > > > > + const char *name, CharDriverState
> > > > > *chr,
> > > > > + uint32_t queues)
> > > > > {
> > > > > NetClientState *nc;
> > > > > VhostUserState *s;
> > > > > + int i;
> > > > >
> > > > > - nc = qemu_new_net_client(&net_vhost_user_info, peer, device,
> > > > > name);
> > > > > + for (i = 0; i < queues; i++) {
> > > > > + nc = qemu_new_net_client(&net_vhost_user_info, peer, device,
> > > > > name);
> > > > >
> > > > > - snprintf(nc->info_str, sizeof(nc->info_str), "vhost-user to %s",
> > > > > - chr->label);
> > > > > + snprintf(nc->info_str, sizeof(nc->info_str), "vhost-user%d
> > > > > to %s",
> > > > > + i, chr->label);
> > > > >
> > > > > - s = DO_UPCAST(VhostUserState, nc, nc);
> > > > > + s = DO_UPCAST(VhostUserState, nc, nc);
> > > > >
> > > > > - /* We don't provide a receive callback */
> > > > > - s->nc.receive_disabled = 1;
> > > > > - s->chr = chr;
> > > > > -
> > > > > - qemu_chr_add_handlers(s->chr, NULL, NULL, net_vhost_user_event,
> > > > > s);
> > > > > + /* We don't provide a receive callback */
> > > > > + s->nc.receive_disabled = 1;
> > > > > + s->chr = chr;
> > > > > + s->nc.queue_index = i;
> > > > >
> > > > > + qemu_chr_add_handlers(s->chr, NULL, NULL,
> > > > > net_vhost_user_event, s);
> > > > > + }
> > > > > return 0;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > @@ -225,6 +229,7 @@ static int net_vhost_check_net(QemuOpts *opts,
> > > > > void *opaque)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > There are two problems here:
> > > >
> > > > 1. we don't really know that the backend
> > > > is able to support the requested number of queues.
> > > > If not, everything will fail, silently.
> > > > A new message to query the # of queues could help, though
> > > > I'm not sure what can be done on failure. Fail connection?
> > >
> > > What I'm thinking is we may do:
> > >
> > > - introduce a feature flag, for indicating we support MQ or not.
> > >
> > > We query this flag only when # of queues given is > 1. We exit
> > > if it not matches.
> > >
> > > - invoke vhost_dev init repeatedly for # of queues given, unless
> > > something wrong happened, which basically means the backend
> > > can not support such # of queues; we then quit.
> > >
> > > We could, as you suggested, add an another message to query
> > > the max # queues the backend support. However, judging we have
> > > to check the return value of setting up a single queue pair,
> > > which already gives feedback when the backed is not able to
> > > support requested # of queues, we could save such message,
> > > though it's easy to implement :)
> >
> > Problem is, we only setup queues when device is started,
> > that is when guest is running.
>
> So we couldn't simply invoke 'exit()', right?
>
> >
> > Doing this at connect would mean we don't start the VM
> > that we can't then support.
>
> Sorry, I'm a bit confused then. You just said that we setup queues
> when guest is running, but now you were saying that VM hasn't been
> started yet at connect time. As far as I know, we setup queues when
> the socket is connected. So, isn't it contradictory in your sayings?
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > 2. each message (e.g. set memory table) is sent multiple times,
> > > > on the same socket.
> > >
> > > Yeah, for there is a single socket opening there, it's not necessary
> > > to send messages like SET_MEM_TABLE multiple times. But for other
> > > messages that relate to to a specific vring, we have to send N times,
> > > don't we?
> >
> > We need to set up each vring, sure.
> >
> >
> > > So, I'm wondering could we categorize the message in two types: vring
> > > specific and none-vring specific. For vring specific, we send it N
> > > times, with the vhost_dev->vq_index telling which one queue pair
> > > we have interest.
> > >
> > > For none-vring specific, we just send it once for first queue pair
> > > (vhost_dev->queue == 0), just like what we did for tap: we launch
> > > qemu-ifup/down script only for the first queue pair.
> >
> > Sounds reasonable. Make this all internal to vhost user:
> > no need for common vhost code to know about this distinction.
>
> Good to know and I'll keep it in mind.
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
>
> --yliu
> >
> > > Comments? (And sorry if I made some silly comments, as I'm pretty
> > > new to this community, say just have read about 2 weeks code).
> > >
> > > --yliu
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > int net_init_vhost_user(const NetClientOptions *opts, const char
> > > > > *name,
> > > > > NetClientState *peer)
> > > > > {
> > > > > + uint32_t queues;
> > > > > const NetdevVhostUserOptions *vhost_user_opts;
> > > > > CharDriverState *chr;
> > > > >
> > > > > @@ -243,6 +248,12 @@ int net_init_vhost_user(const NetClientOptions
> > > > > *opts, const char *name,
> > > > > return -1;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > + /* number of queues for multiqueue */
> > > > > + if (vhost_user_opts->has_queues) {
> > > > > + queues = vhost_user_opts->queues;
> > > > > + } else {
> > > > > + queues = 1;
> > > > > + }
> > > > >
> > > > > - return net_vhost_user_init(peer, "vhost_user", name, chr);
> > > > > + return net_vhost_user_init(peer, "vhost_user", name, chr,
> > > > > queues);
> > > > > }
> > > > > diff --git a/qapi-schema.json b/qapi-schema.json
> > > > > index f97ffa1..51e40ce 100644
> > > > > --- a/qapi-schema.json
> > > > > +++ b/qapi-schema.json
> > > > > @@ -2444,12 +2444,16 @@
> > > > > #
> > > > > # @vhostforce: #optional vhost on for non-MSIX virtio guests
> > > > > (default: false).
> > > > > #
> > > > > +# @queues: #optional number of queues to be created for multiqueue
> > > > > vhost-user
> > > > > +# (default: 1) (Since 2.5)
> > > > > +#
> > > > > # Since 2.1
> > > > > ##
> > > > > { 'struct': 'NetdevVhostUserOptions',
> > > > > 'data': {
> > > > > 'chardev': 'str',
> > > > > - '*vhostforce': 'bool' } }
> > > > > + '*vhostforce': 'bool',
> > > > > + '*queues': 'uint32' } }
> > > > >
> > > > > ##
> > > > > # @NetClientOptions
> > > > > diff --git a/qemu-options.hx b/qemu-options.hx
> > > > > index ec356f6..dad035e 100644
> > > > > --- a/qemu-options.hx
> > > > > +++ b/qemu-options.hx
> > > > > @@ -1942,13 +1942,14 @@ The hubport netdev lets you connect a NIC to
> > > > > a QEMU "vlan" instead of a single
> > > > > netdev. @code{-net} and @code{-device} with parameter @option{vlan}
> > > > > create the
> > > > > required hub automatically.
> > > > >
> > > > > -@item -netdev vhost-user,chardev=@var{id}[,vhostforce=on|off]
> > > > > +@item -netdev
> > > > > vhost-user,chardev=@var{id}[,vhostforce=on|off][,queues=n]
> > > > >
> > > > > Establish a vhost-user netdev, backed by a chardev @var{id}. The
> > > > > chardev should
> > > > > be a unix domain socket backed one. The vhost-user uses a
> > > > > specifically defined
> > > > > protocol to pass vhost ioctl replacement messages to an application
> > > > > on the other
> > > > > end of the socket. On non-MSIX guests, the feature can be forced with
> > > > > -@var{vhostforce}.
> > > > > +@var{vhostforce}. Use 'queues=@var{n}' to specify the number of
> > > > > queues to
> > > > > +be created for multiqueue vhost-user.
> > > > >
> > > > > Example:
> > > > > @example
> > > > > --
> > > > > 1.8.4.2
> > > > >
