[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 01/10] lib/librte_vhost: add external backend support
Tan, Jianfeng
jianfeng.tan at intel.com
Thu Mar 29 04:11:20 CEST 2018
It's interesting that we add some new APIs to be used by the
lib/librte_vhost/ itself. I can understand as we planned to not put
vhost crypto into the lib.
As vhost crypto is not a real "external backend", we could ask opinion
of a real external backend if these are really necessary. pre and post
message handlers would be OK. But do we really need register private
data from external backend? @Changpeng @Pawel @Dariusz @Tomasz.
BTW, external backend sounds a little exclusive :-), does extended
backend sound better?
On 3/26/2018 5:51 PM, Fan Zhang wrote:
> This patch adds external backend support to vhost library. The patch provides
> new APIs for the external backend to register private data, plus pre and post
> vhost-user message handlers.
>
> Signed-off-by: Fan Zhang <roy.fan.zhang at intel.com>
> ---
> lib/librte_vhost/rte_vhost.h | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> lib/librte_vhost/vhost.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++-
> lib/librte_vhost/vhost.h | 8 ++++++--
> lib/librte_vhost/vhost_user.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> 4 files changed, 98 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/librte_vhost/rte_vhost.h b/lib/librte_vhost/rte_vhost.h
> index d332069..591b731 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_vhost/rte_vhost.h
> +++ b/lib/librte_vhost/rte_vhost.h
> @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
> /* SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
> - * Copyright(c) 2010-2017 Intel Corporation
> + * Copyright(c) 2010-2018 Intel Corporation
> */
>
> #ifndef _RTE_VHOST_H_
> @@ -88,6 +88,33 @@ struct vhost_device_ops {
> };
>
> /**
> + * function prototype for external virtio device to handler device specific
handler -> handle
> + * vhost user messages
> + *
> + * @param extern_data
> + * private data for external backend
There is not such parameter in below function type.
> + * @param msg
> + * Message pointer
> + * @param payload
> + * Message payload
Ditto.
> + * @param require_reply
> + * If the handler requires sending a reply, this varaible shall be written 1,
> + * otherwise 0
> + * @return
> + * 0 on success, -1 on failure
> + */
> +typedef int (*rte_vhost_msg_handler)(int vid, void *msg,
> + uint32_t *require_reply);
> +
> +/**
> + * pre and post vhost user message handlers
> + */
> +struct rte_vhost_user_dev_extern_ops {
Considering the original vhost_device_ops, does vhost_user_extern_ops
sound better?
> + rte_vhost_msg_handler pre_vhost_user_msg_handler;
> + rte_vhost_msg_handler post_vhost_user_msg_handler;
> +};
> +
> +/**
> * Convert guest physical address to host virtual address
> *
> * @param mem
> @@ -434,6 +461,22 @@ int rte_vhost_vring_call(int vid, uint16_t vring_idx);
> */
> uint32_t rte_vhost_rx_queue_count(int vid, uint16_t qid);
>
> +/**
> + * register external vhost backend
> + *
> + * @param vid
> + * vhost device ID
> + * @param extern_data
> + * private data for external backend
> + * @param ops
> + * ops that process external vhost user messages
> + * @return
> + * 0 on success, -1 on failure
> + */
> +int
> +rte_vhost_user_register_extern_backend(int vid, void *extern_data,
> + struct rte_vhost_user_dev_extern_ops *ops);
Considering the original rte_vhost_driver_callback_register, does
rte_vhost_message_handler_register sound better?
For extern_data, as mentioned in the head, let's discuss if it's
necessary to be registered through API.
> +
> #ifdef __cplusplus
> }
> #endif
> diff --git a/lib/librte_vhost/vhost.c b/lib/librte_vhost/vhost.c
> index a407067..0932537 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_vhost/vhost.c
> +++ b/lib/librte_vhost/vhost.c
> @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
> /* SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
> - * Copyright(c) 2010-2016 Intel Corporation
> + * Copyright(c) 2010-2018 Intel Corporation
> */
>
> #include <linux/vhost.h>
> @@ -627,3 +627,24 @@ rte_vhost_rx_queue_count(int vid, uint16_t qid)
>
> return *((volatile uint16_t *)&vq->avail->idx) - vq->last_avail_idx;
> }
> +
> +int
> +rte_vhost_user_register_extern_backend(int vid, void *extern_data,
> + struct rte_vhost_user_dev_extern_ops *ops)
> +{
> + struct virtio_net *dev;
Do we want to rename this internal structure to something like
vhost_dev, if it contains not only information for net?
> +
> + dev = get_device(vid);
> + if (dev == NULL)
> + return -1;
> +
> + dev->extern_data = extern_data;
> + if (ops) {
> + dev->extern_ops.pre_vhost_user_msg_handler =
> + ops->pre_vhost_user_msg_handler;
> + dev->extern_ops.post_vhost_user_msg_handler =
> + ops->post_vhost_user_msg_handler;
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> diff --git a/lib/librte_vhost/vhost.h b/lib/librte_vhost/vhost.h
> index d947bc9..6aaa46c 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_vhost/vhost.h
> +++ b/lib/librte_vhost/vhost.h
> @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
> /* SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
> - * Copyright(c) 2010-2014 Intel Corporation
> + * Copyright(c) 2010-2018 Intel Corporation
> */
>
> #ifndef _VHOST_NET_CDEV_H_
> @@ -241,8 +241,12 @@ struct virtio_net {
> struct guest_page *guest_pages;
>
> int slave_req_fd;
> -} __rte_cache_aligned;
>
> + /* private data for external virtio device */
> + void *extern_data;
> + /* pre and post vhost user message handlers for externel backend */
> + struct rte_vhost_user_dev_extern_ops extern_ops;
> +} __rte_cache_aligned;
>
> #define VHOST_LOG_PAGE 4096
>
> diff --git a/lib/librte_vhost/vhost_user.c b/lib/librte_vhost/vhost_user.c
> index 90ed211..c064cb3 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_vhost/vhost_user.c
> +++ b/lib/librte_vhost/vhost_user.c
> @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
> /* SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
> - * Copyright(c) 2010-2016 Intel Corporation
> + * Copyright(c) 2010-2018 Intel Corporation
> */
>
> #include <stdint.h>
> @@ -50,6 +50,8 @@ static const char *vhost_message_str[VHOST_USER_MAX] = {
> [VHOST_USER_NET_SET_MTU] = "VHOST_USER_NET_SET_MTU",
> [VHOST_USER_SET_SLAVE_REQ_FD] = "VHOST_USER_SET_SLAVE_REQ_FD",
> [VHOST_USER_IOTLB_MSG] = "VHOST_USER_IOTLB_MSG",
> + [VHOST_USER_CRYPTO_CREATE_SESS] = "VHOST_USER_CRYPTO_CREATE_SESS",
> + [VHOST_USER_CRYPTO_CLOSE_SESS] = "VHOST_USER_CRYPTO_CLOSE_SESS",
Please leave this patch device agnostic. Put these into crypto related
patches.
> };
>
> static uint64_t
> @@ -1379,6 +1381,18 @@ vhost_user_msg_handler(int vid, int fd)
>
> }
>
> + if (dev->extern_ops.pre_vhost_user_msg_handler) {
> + uint32_t need_reply;
> +
> + ret = (*dev->extern_ops.pre_vhost_user_msg_handler)(dev->vid,
We have a variable vid, why use dev->vid?
> + (void *)&msg, &need_reply);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto skip_to_reply;
> +
> + if (need_reply)
> + send_vhost_reply(fd, &msg);
Do we have case that, if device handles that, we don't need to common
handle and post handle below? In other words, how to handle overlapping
of message handle?
> + }
> +
> switch (msg.request.master) {
> case VHOST_USER_GET_FEATURES:
> msg.payload.u64 = vhost_user_get_features(dev);
> @@ -1477,11 +1491,20 @@ vhost_user_msg_handler(int vid, int fd)
> break;
>
> default:
> - ret = -1;
> - break;
> + if (dev->extern_ops.post_vhost_user_msg_handler) {
Do we allow overlapping of common and post handle?
> + uint32_t need_reply;
>
> + ret = (*dev->extern_ops.post_vhost_user_msg_handler)(
> + dev->vid, (void *)&msg, &need_reply);
> +
> + if (need_reply)
> + send_vhost_reply(fd, &msg);
> + } else
> + ret = -1;
> + break;
> }
>
> +skip_to_reply:
> if (unlock_required)
> vhost_user_unlock_all_queue_pairs(dev);
>
More information about the dev
mailing list