[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH RFC] virtio-fs: force virtio 1.x usage
From: |
Cornelia Huck |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH RFC] virtio-fs: force virtio 1.x usage |
Date: |
Mon, 29 Jun 2020 17:39:33 +0200 |
On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 10:53:23 -0400
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 12:27:58PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > virtio-fs devices are only specified for virtio-1, so it is unclear
> > how a legacy or transitional device should behave.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
> > ---
> >
> > Forcing off legacy now (after the virtio-fs device has already been
> > available) may have unintended consequences, therefore RFC.
> >
> > By default, a virtio-pci device uses 'AUTO' for disable_legacy, which
> > will resolve to different values based upon which bus the device has
> > been plugged. Therefore, forcing disable_legacy may result in the same
> > device or a quite different one.
> >
> > Even though pre-virtio-1 behaviour of virtio-fs devices is simply not
> > specified, toggling disable_legacy will have implications for the BAR
> > layout, IIRC, and therefore a guest might end up getting a different
> > device, even if it always used it with virtio-1 anyway.
> >
> > Not sure what the best way to solve this problem is. Adding a compat
> > property for disable_legacy=AUTO may be the right thing to do, but I'm
> > not quite clear if there are any further implications here.
>
> Well I notice that this device is not migrateable.
> So I think that we can just switch it over and be done with it.
Oh, that makes things easier. (I'm wondering if libvirt already
configures this correctly?)
>
>
> > Whatever we do here, we should make sure that the ccw incarnation of
> > this device indeed forces virtio-1.
>
> I agree. I notice that the API virtio_pci_force_virtio_1 turned out
> to be too fragile. I propose that instead we have a whitelist of
> devices which can be legacy or transitional. Force rest to modern.
Also, there are further complications because the mechanism is per
transport, and therefore easy to miss.
bool virtio_legacy_allowed(VirtIODevice *vdev)
{
switch (vdev->device_id) {
case <...>:
<list of legacy-capable devices>
return true;
default:
return false;
}
Seems straightforward enough.
>
>
> > ---
> > hw/virtio/vhost-user-fs-pci.c | 1 +
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/hw/virtio/vhost-user-fs-pci.c b/hw/virtio/vhost-user-fs-pci.c
> > index e11c889d82b3..244205edf765 100644
> > --- a/hw/virtio/vhost-user-fs-pci.c
> > +++ b/hw/virtio/vhost-user-fs-pci.c
> > @@ -44,6 +44,7 @@ static void vhost_user_fs_pci_realize(VirtIOPCIProxy
> > *vpci_dev, Error **errp)
> > vpci_dev->nvectors = dev->vdev.conf.num_request_queues + 2;
> > }
> >
> > + virtio_pci_force_virtio_1(vpci_dev);
> > qdev_realize(vdev, BUS(&vpci_dev->bus), errp);
> > }
> >
> > --
> > 2.25.4
>
- [PATCH RFC] virtio-fs: force virtio 1.x usage, Cornelia Huck, 2020/06/29
- Re: [PATCH RFC] virtio-fs: force virtio 1.x usage, Michael S. Tsirkin, 2020/06/29
- Re: [PATCH RFC] virtio-fs: force virtio 1.x usage,
Cornelia Huck <=
- Re: [PATCH RFC] virtio-fs: force virtio 1.x usage, Michael S. Tsirkin, 2020/06/29
- Re: [PATCH RFC] virtio-fs: force virtio 1.x usage, Cornelia Huck, 2020/06/30
- Re: [PATCH RFC] virtio-fs: force virtio 1.x usage, Michael S. Tsirkin, 2020/06/30
- Re: [PATCH RFC] virtio-fs: force virtio 1.x usage, Cornelia Huck, 2020/06/30
- Re: [PATCH RFC] virtio-fs: force virtio 1.x usage, Michael S. Tsirkin, 2020/06/30
Re: [PATCH RFC] virtio-fs: force virtio 1.x usage, Dr. David Alan Gilbert, 2020/06/29
Re: [PATCH RFC] virtio-fs: force virtio 1.x usage, Stefan Hajnoczi, 2020/06/30