Re: [PATCH 6/6] vhost-user: Have reset_status fall back to reset

[Stefan Hajnoczi]

On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 04:16:07PM +0200, Hanna Czenczek wrote:
> On 20.07.23 18:03, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 04:27:58PM +0200, Hanna Czenczek wrote:
> > > On 19.07.23 16:11, Hanna Czenczek wrote:
> > > > On 18.07.23 17:10, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 05:52:28PM +0200, Hanna Czenczek wrote:
> > > > > > The only user of vhost_user_reset_status() is vhost_dev_stop(), 
> > > > > > which
> > > > > > only uses it as a fall-back to stop the back-end if it does not 
> > > > > > support
> > > > > > SUSPEND.  However, vhost-user's implementation is a no-op unless the
> > > > > > back-end supports SET_STATUS.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > vhost-vdpa's implementation instead just calls
> > > > > > vhost_vdpa_reset_device(), implying that it's OK to fully reset the
> > > > > > device if SET_STATUS is not supported.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > To be fair, vhost_vdpa_reset_device() does nothing but to set
> > > > > > the status
> > > > > > to zero.  However, that may well be because vhost-vdpa has no method
> > > > > > besides this to reset a device.  In contrast, vhost-user has
> > > > > > RESET_DEVICE and a RESET_OWNER, which can be used instead.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > While it is not entirely clear from documentation or git logs, from
> > > > > > discussions and the order of vhost-user protocol features, it
> > > > > > appears to
> > > > > > me as if RESET_OWNER originally had no real meaning for vhost-user, 
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > was thus used to signal a device reset to the back-end.  Then,
> > > > > > RESET_DEVICE was introduced, to have a well-defined dedicated reset
> > > > > > command.  Finally, vhost-user received full STATUS support, 
> > > > > > including
> > > > > > SET_STATUS, so setting the device status to 0 is now the preferred 
> > > > > > way
> > > > > > of resetting a device.  Still, RESET_DEVICE and RESET_OWNER should
> > > > > > remain valid as fall-backs.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Therefore, have vhost_user_reset_status() fall back to
> > > > > > vhost_user_reset_device() if the back-end has no STATUS support.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Hanna Czenczek <hreitz@redhat.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >    hw/virtio/vhost-user.c | 2 ++
> > > > > >    1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > diff --git a/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c b/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c
> > > > > > index 4507de5a92..53a881ec2a 100644
> > > > > > --- a/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c
> > > > > > +++ b/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c
> > > > > > @@ -2833,6 +2833,8 @@ static void vhost_user_reset_status(struct
> > > > > > vhost_dev *dev)
> > > > > >        if (virtio_has_feature(dev->protocol_features,
> > > > > >                               VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_STATUS)) {
> > > > > >            vhost_user_set_status(dev, 0);
> > > > > > +    } else {
> > > > > > +        vhost_user_reset_device(dev);
> > > > > >        }
> > > > > >    }
> > > > > Did you check whether DPDK treats setting the status to 0 as 
> > > > > equivalent
> > > > > to RESET_DEVICE?
> > > > If it doesn’t, what’s even the point of using reset_status?
> > > Sorry, I’m being unclear, and I think this may be important because it 
> > > ties
> > > into the question from patch 1, what qemu is even trying to do by running
> > > SET_STATUS(0) vhost_dev_stop(), so here’s what gave me the impression that
> > > SET_STATUS(0) and RESET_DEVICE should be equivalent:
> > > 
> > > vhost-vdpa.c runs SET_STATUS(0) in a function called
> > > vhost_vdpa_reset_device().  This is one thing that gave me the impression
> > > that this is about an actual full reset.
> > > 
> > > Another is the whole discussion that we’ve had.  vhost_dev_stop() does not
> > > call a `vhost_reset_device()` function, it calls `vhost_reset_status()`.
> > > Still, we were always talking about resetting the device.
> > There is some hacky stuff with struct vhost_dev's vq_index_end and
> > multi-queue devices. I think it's because multi-queue vhost-net device
> > consist of many vhost_devs and NetClientStates, so certain vhost
> > operations are skipped unless this is the "first" or "last" vhost_dev
> > from a large aggregate vhost-net device. That might be responsible for
> > part of the weirdness.
> > 
> > > It doesn’t make sense to me that vDPA would provide no function to fully
> > > reset a device, while vhost-user does.  Being able to reset a device 
> > > sounds
> > > vital to me.  This also gave me the impression that SET_STATUS(0) on vDPA 
> > > at
> > > least is functionally equivalent to a full device reset.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Maybe SET_STATUS(0) does mean a full device reset on vDPA, but not on
> > > vhost-user.  That would be a real shame, so I assumed this would not be 
> > > the
> > > case; that SET_STATUS(0) does the same thing on both protocols.
> > Yes, exactly. It has the real VIRTIO spec meaning in vDPA. In vhost-user
> > it's currently only used by DPDK as a hint for when device
> > initialization is complete:
> > https://github.com/DPDK/dpdk/commit/41d201804c4c44738168e2d247d3b1780845faa1
> 
> FWIW, now the code is a bit different.
> https://github.com/DPDK/dpdk/commit/671cc679a5fcd26705bb20ddc13b93e665719054
> has added a RESET interpretation for the status field, i.e. when it is 0. 
> It doesn’t do anything, but at least DPDK seems to agree that SET_STATUS(0)
> is a reset.

That patch adds diagnostics but does not perform any action for
SET_STATUS 0. DPDK's vhost_user_reset_owner() is still the only place
where the device is actually reset. QEMU cannot switch to just
SET_STATUS 0, it still needs to send RESET_DEVICE/RESET_OWNER.

> 
> > > The virtio specification says “Writing 0 into this field resets the 
> > > device.”
> > > about the device_status field.
> > > 
> > > This also makes sense, because the device_status field is basically used 
> > > to
> > > tell the device that a driver has taken control.  If reset, this indicates
> > > the driver has given up control, and to me this is a point where a device
> > > should fully reset itself.
> > > 
> > > So all in all, I can’t see the rationale why any implementation that
> > > supports SET_STATUS would decide to treat SET_STATUS(0) not as equivalent 
> > > or
> > > a superset of RESET_DEVICE.  I may be wrong, and this might explain a 
> > > whole
> > > deal about what kind of background operations we hope to stop with
> > > SET_STATUS(0).
> > I would like vhost-user devices to implement SET_STATUS according to the
> > VIRTIO specification in the future and they can do that. But I think
> > front-ends should continue sending RESET_DEVICE in order to support old
> > devices.
> 
> Well, yes, exactly.  That is what I meant to address with this patch,
> vhost-user right now does not send RESET_DEVICE in its vhost_reset_status
> implementation, so the front-end will not fall back to RESET_DEVICE when it
> apparently does intend to reset the device[1].  We do arguably have
> vhost_reset_device, too, but for vDPA that is just a SET_STATUS(0) (there is
> no RESET_DEVICE on vDPA), and it’s also only called by vhost-user-scsi.
> 
> So this also begs the question why we even do have vhost_reset_status and
> vhost_reset_device as two separate things. The commit introducing
> vhost_reset_status (c3716f260bf) doesn’t say.  Maybe the intention was that
> vhost_reset_device would leave the status at 0, while vhost_reset_status
> would return it to ACKNOWLEDGE | DRIVER, as done by the introducing commit,
> but that comes back to patch 5 in this series – we don’t need to have
> ACKNOWLEDGE | DRIVER set after vhost_dev_stop(), so we don’t need
> vhost_reset_status to set those flags.  They should be set in
> vhost_dev_start().
> 
> [1] This is assuming that SET_STATUS(0) is intended to reset the device, but
> it sounds like you agree on that.

I don't know the answers, but I think it's safe to go ahead with a
SET_STATUS sequence that follows the VIRTIO spec, plus a
VHOST_USER_RESET_DEVICE/VHOST_USER_RESET_OWNER.

Stefan

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature