* Marc-André Lureau ([email protected]) wrote: > Hi > > On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 4:05 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 2019-11-04 22:55, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > > > * [email protected] ([email protected]) wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> On 2019-11-03 21:10, [email protected] wrote: > > >> > On 2019-11-01 02:52, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > > >> > > * [email protected] ([email protected]) wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On 2019-11-01 01:52, Peter Maydell wrote: > > >> > > > > On Thu, 31 Oct 2019 at 14:26, <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > > > As the author of Looking Glass, I also have to consider the > > >> > > > > > maintenance > > >> > > > > > and the complexity of implementing the vhost protocol into the > > >> > > > > > project. > > >> > > > > > At this time a complete Porthole client can be implemented in > > >> > > > > > 150 > > >> > > > > > lines > > >> > > > > > of C without external dependencies, and most of that is > > >> > > > > > boilerplate > > >> > > > > > socket code. This IMO is a major factor in deciding to avoid > > >> > > > > > vhost-user. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > This is essentially a proposal that we should make our project > > >> > > > > and > > >> > > > > code more complicated so that your project and code can be > > >> > > > > simpler. > > >> > > > > I hope you can see why this isn't necessarily an argument that > > >> > > > > will hold > > >> > > > > very much weight for us :-) > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Certainly, I do which is why I am still going to see about using > > >> > > > vhost, > > >> > > > however, a device that uses vhost is likely more complex then > > >> > > > the device > > >> > > > as it stands right now and as such more maintenance would be > > >> > > > involved on > > >> > > > your end also. Or have I missed something in that vhost-user can > > >> > > > be used > > >> > > > directly as a device? > > >> > > > > >> > > The basic vhost-user stuff isn't actually that hard; if you aren't > > >> > > actually shuffling commands over the queues you should find it pretty > > >> > > simple - so I think your assumption about it being simpler if you > > >> > > avoid > > >> > > it might be wrong. It might be easier if you use it! > > >> > > > >> > I have been looking into this and I am yet to find some decent > > >> > documentation or a simple device example I can use to understand how to > > >> > create such a device. Do you know of any reading or examples I can > > >> > obtain > > >> > on how to get an initial do nothing device up and running? > > >> > > > >> > -Geoff > > >> > > >> Scratch that, the design just solidified for me and I am now making > > >> progress, however it seems that vhost-user can't do what we need here: > > >> > > >> 1) I dont see any way to recieve notification of socket disconnection, > > >> in > > >> our use case the client app needs to be able to be (re)connected > > >> dynamically. It might be possible to get this event by registering it > > >> on > > >> the chardev manually but this seems like it would be a kludge. > > > > > > My understanding was that someone added support for reconnection of > > > vhost-user; I'm not sure of the detail - cc'ing in Maxime and > > > Marc-Andre. > > > > > >> 2) I don't see any method of notifying the vhost-user client of the > > >> removal of a shared memory mapping. Again, these may not be > > >> persistently > > >> mapped in the guest as we have no control over the buffer allocation, > > >> and > > >> as such, we need a method to notify the client that the mapping has > > >> become > > >> invalid. > > >> > > >> 3) VHOST_USER_SET_MEM_TABLE is a one time request, again this breaks > > >> our > > >> usage as we need to change this dynamically at runtime. > > > > > > I've seen (3) being sent multiple times (It's messy but it happens); so > > > I think that fixes (2) as well for you. > > > > Yes, but it's ignored. > > > > /* > > * For non-vring specific requests, like VHOST_USER_SET_MEM_TABLE, > > * we just need send it once in the first time. For later such > > * request, we just ignore it. > > */ > > if (vhost_user_one_time_request(msg->hdr.request) && dev->vq_index > > != 0) { > > msg->hdr.flags &= ~VHOST_USER_NEED_REPLY_MASK; > > return 0; > > } > > This code was added to avoid sending the same mapping for each queue: > https://github.com/qemu/qemu/commit/b931bfbf042983f311b3b09894d8030b2755a638 > (arguably, the filtering could have been done earlier) > > But if you reconnect, it should still send it again at least once (for vq #0). > > vhost-user-bridge reconnect used to work quite reliably, I haven't > tested recently.
Doesn't this also happen sometimes if the guest sees memory devices change? Dave > > > > > > > > > Dave > > > > > >> Unless there are viable solutions to these problems there is no way > > >> that > > >> vhost-user can be used for this kind of a device. > > >> > > >> -Geoff > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > Dave > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > thanks > > >> > > > > -- PMM > > >> > > -- > > >> > > Dr. David Alan Gilbert / [email protected] / Manchester, UK > > > -- > > > Dr. David Alan Gilbert / [email protected] / Manchester, UK -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / [email protected] / Manchester, UK
