On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 04:07:54PM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 03:39:11PM CET, wrote:
>
>On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 09:03:18AM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >> Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 07:37:31PM CET, wrote:
> >>
>On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 06:03:40AM -0500, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, Mar 05, 2023 at 07:18:24PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >> >>
> On Sun, Mar 05, 2023 at 07:03:02PM -0500, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> >> >> >
> On Sun, Mar 05, 2023 at 04:38:59AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >> >> > >
> On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 03:21:33PM -0500, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> >> >> > > >
> What happens if a command takes 1 second to complete, is the device
> >> >> > > >
> allowed to process the next command from the virtqueue during this time,
> >> >> > > >
> possibly completing it before the first command?
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > >
> This requires additional clarification in the spec because "they are
> >> >> > > >
> processed by the device in the order in which they are queued" does not
> >> >> > > >
> explain whether commands block the virtqueue (in order completion) or
> >> >> > > >
> not (out of order completion).
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > >
> Oh I begin to see. Hmm how does e.g. virtio scsi handle this?
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> virtio-scsi, virtio-blk, and NVMe requests may complete out of order.
> >> >> >
> Several may be processed by the device at the same time.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> Let's say I submit a write followed by read - is read
> >> >>
> guaranteed to return an up to date info?
> >> >>
> >> >> In general, no. The driver must wait for the write completion before
> >> >> submitting the read if it wants consistency.
> >> >>
> >> >> Stefan
> >> >
> >>
>I see. I think it's a good design to follow then.
> >>
> >> Hmm, is it suitable to have this approach for configuration interface?
> >> Storage device is a different beast, having parallel reads and writes
> >> makes complete sense for performance.
> >>
> >> ->read a req
> >> ->read b req
> >> ->read c req
> >> <-read a rep
> >> <-read b rep
> >> <-read c rep
> >>
> >> There is no dependency, even between writes.
> >>
> >> But in case of configuration, does not make any sense to me.
> >> Why is it needed? To pass the burden of consistency of
> >> configuration to driver sounds odd at least.
> >>
> >> I sense there is no concete idea about what the "admin virtqueue" should
> >> serve for exactly.
> >
>
>It's useful for long-running commands because they prevent other
>
>commands from executing.
> >
>
>An example I've given is that deleting a group member might require
>
>waiting for the group member's I/O activity to finish. If that I/O
>
>activity cannot be cancelled instantaneously, then it could take an
>
>unbounded amount of time to delete the group member. The device would be
>
>unable to process futher admin commands.
>
> I see. Then I believe that the device should handle the dependencies.
> Example 1:
> -> REQ cmd to create group member A
> -> REQ cmd to create group member B
> <- REP cmd to create group member A
> <- REP cmd to create group member B
>
> The device according to internal implementation can either serialize the
> 2 group member creations or do it in parallel, if it supports it.
>
> Example 2:
> -> REQ cmd to create group member A
> -> REQ cmd config group member A
> <- REP cmd to create group member A
> <- REP cmd config group member A
>
> Here the serialization is necessary and the device is the one to take
> care of it.
>
> Makes sense?
Yes, I understand. The spec would need to define ordering rules for
specific commands and the device must implement them. It allows the
driver to pipeline commands while also allowing out-of-order completion
(parallelism) in some cases. The disadvantage of this approach is
complexity in the spec and implementations.
An alternative is unconditional out-of-order completion, where there are
no per-command ordering rules. The driver must wait for a command to
complete if it relies on the results of that command for its next
command. I like this approach because it's less complex in the spec and
for device implementers, while the burden on the driver implementer is
still reasonable.
> >
>
>Group member creation might have similar issues if it involves acquiring
>
>remote resources (e.g. connecting to a Ceph cluster or allocating ports
>
>on a distributed network switch). It can be impossible to defer resource
>
> Sidetrack: this is really fuzzy to me, how the new member is going to be
> plugged into backend (network). Over the time, we learned that the
> creation of device from the other side (switch side) makes more sense.
> That is why I asked for motivation to introduce this infra.
Michael, have you already thought about this?
>
>acquisition/initialization because because VIRTIO devices must be
>
>available as soon as the driver can see them (i.e. how do populate
>
>Configuration Space fields if you don't have the details of the resource
>
>yet?).
> >
>
>So I have raised two questions:
> >
>
>1. What are the admin queue command completion semantics: in-order or
>
>
out-of-order command completion?
>
> I would add "dependencies/serialization" here.
>
>
> >
>
>2. Will there be long-running commands and how will we deal with them
>
>
when they hang?
>
> Yeah, sounds legit to define it in spec.
>
> >
>
>Stefan
>
>
