Re: [PATCH 2/3] vdpa: load vlan configuration at NIC startup

[Si-Wei Liu]

On 9/14/2022 3:20 AM, Jason Wang wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2022 at 4:02 PM Eugenio Perez Martin <eperezma@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 9, 2022 at 8:40 AM Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 9, 2022 at 2:38 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 12:36 AM Eugenio Pérez <eperezma@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > To have enabled vlans at device startup may happen in the destination of
> > > > > a live migration, so this configuration must be restored.
> > > > >
> > > > > At this moment the code is not accessible, since SVQ refuses to start if
> > > > > vlan feature is exposed by the device.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Eugenio Pérez <eperezma@redhat.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >   net/vhost-vdpa.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > > > >   1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/net/vhost-vdpa.c b/net/vhost-vdpa.c
> > > > > index 4bc3fd01a8..ecbfd08eb9 100644
> > > > > --- a/net/vhost-vdpa.c
> > > > > +++ b/net/vhost-vdpa.c
> > > > > @@ -100,6 +100,8 @@ static const uint64_t vdpa_svq_device_features =
> > > > >       BIT_ULL(VIRTIO_NET_F_RSC_EXT) |
> > > > >       BIT_ULL(VIRTIO_NET_F_STANDBY);
> > > > >
> > > > > +#define MAX_VLAN    (1 << 12)   /* Per 802.1Q definition */
> > > > > +
> > > > >   VHostNetState *vhost_vdpa_get_vhost_net(NetClientState *nc)
> > > > >   {
> > > > >       VhostVDPAState *s = DO_UPCAST(VhostVDPAState, nc, nc);
> > > > > @@ -423,6 +425,47 @@ static int vhost_vdpa_net_load_mq(VhostVDPAState *s,
> > > > >       return *s->status != VIRTIO_NET_OK;
> > > > >   }
> > > > >
> > > > > +static int vhost_vdpa_net_load_single_vlan(VhostVDPAState *s,
> > > > > +                                           const VirtIONet *n,
> > > > > +                                           uint16_t vid)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +    ssize_t dev_written = vhost_vdpa_net_load_cmd(s, VIRTIO_NET_CTRL_VLAN,
> > > > > +                                                  VIRTIO_NET_CTRL_VLAN_ADD,
> > > > > +                                                  &vid, sizeof(vid));
> > > > > +    if (unlikely(dev_written < 0)) {
> > > > > +        return dev_written;
> > > > > +    }
> > > > > +
> > > > > +    if (unlikely(*s->status != VIRTIO_NET_OK)) {
> > > > > +        return -EINVAL;
> > > > > +    }
> > > > > +
> > > > > +    return 0;
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static int vhost_vdpa_net_load_vlan(VhostVDPAState *s,
> > > > > +                                    const VirtIONet *n)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +    uint64_t features = n->parent_obj.guest_features;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +    if (!(features & BIT_ULL(VIRTIO_NET_F_CTRL_VLAN))) {
> > > > > +        return 0;
> > > > > +    }
> > > > > +
> > > > > +    for (int i = 0; i < MAX_VLAN >> 5; i++) {
> > > > > +        for (int j = 0; n->vlans[i] && j <= 0x1f; j++) {
> > > > > +            if (n->vlans[i] & (1U << j)) {
> > > > > +                int r = vhost_vdpa_net_load_single_vlan(s, n, (i << 5) + j);
> > > > This seems to cause a lot of latency if the driver has a lot of vlans.
> > > >
> > > > I wonder if it's simply to let all vlan traffic go by disabling
> > > > CTRL_VLAN feature at vDPA layer.
> > The guest will not be able to recover that vlan configuration.
> Spec said it's best effort and we actually don't do this for
> vhost-net/user for years and manage to survive.
I thought there's a border line between best effort and do nothing. ;-)

I think that the reason this could survive is really software 
implementation specific - say if the backend doesn't start with VLAN 
filtering disabled (meaning allow all VLAN traffic to pass) then it 
would become a problem. This won't be a problem for almost PF NICs but 
may be problematic for vDPA e.g. VF backed VDPAs.
> > > Another idea is to extend the spec to allow us to accept a bitmap of
> > > the vlan ids via a single command, then we will be fine.
> > I'm not sure if adding more ways to configure something is the answer,
> > but I'd be ok to implement it.
> >
> > Another idea is to allow the sending of many CVQ commands in parallel.
> > It shouldn't be very hard to achieve using exposed buffers as ring
> > buffers, and it will short down the start of the devices with many
> > features.
> In the extreme case, what if guests decide to filter all of the vlans?
> It means we need MAX_VLAN commands which may exceeds the size of the
> control virtqueue.
Indeed, that's a case where a single flat device state blob would be 
more efficient for hardware drivers to apply than individual control 
command messages do.

-Siwei
> Thanks
>
> > Thanks!
> >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > > > +                if (unlikely(r != 0)) {
> > > > > +                    return r;
> > > > > +                }
> > > > > +            }
> > > > > +        }
> > > > > +    }
> > > > > +
> > > > > +    return 0;
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > >   static int vhost_vdpa_net_load(NetClientState *nc)
> > > > >   {
> > > > >       VhostVDPAState *s = DO_UPCAST(VhostVDPAState, nc, nc);
> > > > > @@ -445,8 +488,7 @@ static int vhost_vdpa_net_load(NetClientState *nc)
> > > > >       if (unlikely(r)) {
> > > > >           return r;
> > > > >       }
> > > > > -
> > > > > -    return 0;
> > > > > +    return vhost_vdpa_net_load_vlan(s, n);
> > > > >   }
> > > > >
> > > > >   static NetClientInfo net_vhost_vdpa_cvq_info = {
> > > > > --
> > > > > 2.31.1