[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH V10 1/3] libxl: Add support for Virtio disk configuration



On 30.06.22 14:18, Oleksandr wrote:

Dear all.


On 25.06.22 17:32, Oleksandr wrote:

On 24.06.22 15:59, George Dunlap wrote:

Hello George


On 17 Jun 2022, at 17:14, Oleksandr Tyshchenko <olekstysh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr_tyshchenko@xxxxxxxx>

This patch adds basic support for configuring and assisting virtio-mmio
based virtio-disk backend (emulator) which is intended to run out of
Qemu and could be run in any domain.
Although the Virtio block device is quite different from traditional
Xen PV block device (vbd) from the toolstack's point of view:
- as the frontend is virtio-blk which is not a Xenbus driver, nothing
   written to Xenstore are fetched by the frontend currently ("vdev"
   is not passed to the frontend). But this might need to be revised
   in future, so frontend data might be written to Xenstore in order to
   support hotplugging virtio devices or passing the backend domain id
   on arch where the device-tree is not available.
- the ring-ref/event-channel are not used for the backend<->frontend
   communication, the proposed IPC for Virtio is IOREQ/DM
it is still a "block device" and ought to be integrated in existing
"disk" handling. So, re-use (and adapt) "disk" parsing/configuration
logic to deal with Virtio devices as well.

For the immediate purpose and an ability to extend that support for
other use-cases in future (Qemu, virtio-pci, etc) perform the following
actions:
- Add new disk backend type (LIBXL_DISK_BACKEND_OTHER) and reflect
  that in the configuration
- Introduce new disk "specification" and "transport" fields to struct
  libxl_device_disk. Both are written to the Xenstore. The transport
  field is only used for the specification "virtio" and it assumes
  only "mmio" value for now.
- Introduce new "specification" option with "xen" communication
  protocol being default value.
- Add new device kind (LIBXL__DEVICE_KIND_VIRTIO_DISK) as current
  one (LIBXL__DEVICE_KIND_VBD) doesn't fit into Virtio disk model

An example of domain configuration for Virtio disk:
disk = [ 'phy:/dev/mmcblk0p3, xvda1, backendtype=other, specification=virtio']

Nothing has changed for default Xen disk configuration.

Please note, this patch is not enough for virtio-disk to work
on Xen (Arm), as for every Virtio device (including disk) we need
to allocate Virtio MMIO params (IRQ and memory region) and pass
them to the backend, also update Guest device-tree. The subsequent
patch will add these missing bits. For the current patch,
the default "irq" and "base" are just written to the Xenstore.
This is not an ideal splitting, but this way we avoid breaking
the bisectability.

Signed-off-by: Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr_tyshchenko@xxxxxxxx>
OK, I am *really* sorry for coming in here at the last minute and quibbling about things.


no problem


  But this introduces a public interface which looks really wrong to me. I’ve replied to the mail from December where Juergen proposed the “Other” protocol.

Hopefully this will be a simple matter of finding a better name than “other”.  (Or you guys convincing me that “other” is really the best name for this value; or even Anthony asserting his right as a maintainer to overrule my objection if he thinks I’m out of line.)


I saw your reply to V6 and Juergen's answer. I share Juergen's opinion as well as I understand your concern. I think, this is exactly the situation when finding a perfect name (obvious, short, etc) for the backendtype (in our particular case) is really difficult.

Personally I tend to leave "other", because there is no better alternative from my PoV. Also I might be completely wrong here, but I don't think we will have to extend the "backendtype" for supporting other possible virtio backend implementations in the foreseeable future:

- when Qemu gains the required support we will choose qdisk: backendtype qdisk specification virtio - for the possible virtio alternative of the blkback we will choose phy: backendtype phy specification virtio

If there will be a need to keep various implementation, we will be able to describe that by using "transport" (mmio, pci, xenbus, argo, whatever).
Actually this is why we also introduced "specification" and "transport".

IIRC, there were other (suggested?) names except "other" which are "external" and "daemon". If you think that one of them is better than "other", I will happy to use it.


Could we please make a decision on this?

If "other" is not unambiguous, then maybe we could choose "daemon" to describe arbitrary user-level backends, any thought?

IMO this would exclude other cases, like special kernel drivers.

Maybe "standalone"? "only-relying-on-xenstore-data" would be a bit
exaggerated, while conveying the idea quite nicely.


Juergen

Attachment: OpenPGP_0xB0DE9DD628BF132F.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.