The current model of memory mapping at the back-end works fine where a
standard call to mmap() (for the respective file descriptor) is enough
before the front-end can start accessing the guest memory.
There are other complex cases though where the back-end needs more
information and simple mmap() isn't enough. For example Xen, a type-1
hypervisor, currently supports memory mapping via two different methods,
foreign-mapping (via /dev/privcmd) and grant-dev (via /dev/gntdev). In
both these cases, the back-end needs to call mmap() and ioctl(), with
extra information like the Xen domain-id of the guest whose memory we
are trying to map.
Add a new protocol feature, 'VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_XEN_MMAP', which lets
the back-end know about the additional memory mapping requirements.
When this feature is negotiated, the front-end will send the additional
information within the memory regions themselves.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Message-Id: <6d0bd7f0e1aeec3ddb603ae4ff334c75c7d0d7b3.1678351495.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
The same layout is defined twice, once in "single memory region
description" and then in "memory regions description".
Separate out details of memory region from these two and reuse the same
definition later on.
While at it, also rename "memory regions description" to "multiple
memory regions description", to avoid potential confusion around similar
names. And define single region before multiple ones.
This is just a documentation optimization, the protocol remains the same.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Message-Id: <7c3718e5eb99178b22696682ae73aca6df1899c7.1678351495.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
Backend's message and protocol features names were still
using "_SLAVE_" naming. For consistency with the new naming
convention, replace it with _BACKEND_.
Signed-off-by: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20230208203259.381326-2-maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
This reverts commit 76b1b64370.
The commit only duplicated some text that had already been merged in
commit 31009d13cc.
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20220627134500.94842-2-kwolf@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
We have about 30 instances of the typo/variant spelling 'writeable',
and over 500 of the more common 'writable'. Standardize on the
latter.
Change produced with:
sed -i -e 's/\([Ww][Rr][Ii][Tt]\)[Ee]\([Aa][Bb][Ll][Ee]\)/\1\2/g' $(git grep -il writeable)
and then hand-undoing the instance in linux-headers/linux/kvm.h.
Most of these changes are in comments or documentation; the
exceptions are:
* a local variable in accel/hvf/hvf-accel-ops.c
* a local variable in accel/kvm/kvm-all.c
* the PMCR_WRITABLE_MASK macro in target/arm/internals.h
* the EPT_VIOLATION_GPA_WRITABLE macro in target/i386/hvf/vmcs.h
(which is never used anywhere)
* the AR_TYPE_WRITABLE_MASK macro in target/i386/hvf/vmx.h
(which is never used anywhere)
Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4bug@amsat.org>
Reviewed-by: Stefan Weil <sw@weilnetz.de>
Message-id: 20220505095015.2714666-1-peter.maydell@linaro.org
The specification for VHOST_USER_ADD/REM_MEM_REG messages is unclear
in several points, which has led to clients having incompatible
implementations. This changes the specification to be more explicit
about them:
* VHOST_USER_ADD_MEM_REG is not specified as receiving a file
descriptor, though it obviously does need to do so. All
implementations agree on this one, fix the specification.
* VHOST_USER_REM_MEM_REG is not specified as receiving a file
descriptor either, and it also has no reason to do so. rust-vmm does
not send file descriptors for removing a memory region (in agreement
with the specification), libvhost-user and QEMU do (which is a bug),
though libvhost-user doesn't actually make any use of it.
Change the specification so that for compatibility QEMU's behaviour
becomes legal, even if discouraged, but rust-vmm's behaviour becomes
the explicitly recommended mode of operation.
* VHOST_USER_ADD_MEM_REG doesn't have a documented return value, which
is the desired behaviour in the non-postcopy case. It also implemented
like this in QEMU and rust-vmm, though libvhost-user is buggy and
sometimes sends an unexpected reply. This will be fixed in a separate
patch.
However, in postcopy mode it does reply like VHOST_USER_SET_MEM_TABLE.
This behaviour is shared between libvhost-user and QEMU; rust-vmm
doesn't implement postcopy mode yet. Mention it explicitly in the
spec.
* The specification doesn't mention how VHOST_USER_REM_MEM_REG
identifies the memory region to be removed. Change it to describe the
existing behaviour of libvhost-user (guest address, user address and
size must match).
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20220407133657.155281-2-kwolf@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Raphael Norwitz <raphael.norwitz@nutanix.com>
Reviewed-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
Make the language about feature negotiation explicitly clear about the
handling of the VHOST_USER_F_PROTOCOL_FEATURES feature bit. Try and
avoid the sort of bug introduced in vhost.rs REPLY_ACK processing:
https://github.com/rust-vmm/vhost/pull/24
Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
Cc: Jiang Liu <gerry@linux.alibaba.com>
Message-Id: <20210226111619.21178-1-alex.bennee@linaro.org>
Message-Id: <20220321153037.3622127-8-alex.bennee@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
This matches the nomenclature that is generally used. Also commonly used
is client/server, but it is not as clear because sometimes the front-end
exposes a passive (server) socket that the back-end connects to.
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20210226143413.188046-4-pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20220321153037.3622127-7-alex.bennee@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
This section is using the word "back-end" to refer to the
"slave's back-end", and talking about the "client" for
what the rest of the document calls the "slave".
Rework it to free the use of the term "back-end", which in
the next patch will replace "slave".
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20210226143413.188046-3-pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20220321153037.3622127-6-alex.bennee@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
It is not necessary to mention which side is sending/receiving
each payload; it is more interesting to say which is the request
and which is the reply. This also matches what vhost-user-gpu.rst
already does.
While at it, ensure that all messages list both the request and
the reply payload.
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20210226143413.188046-2-pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20220321153037.3622127-5-alex.bennee@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4bug@amsat.org>
The specification for VHOST_USER_ADD/REM_MEM_REG messages is unclear
in several points, which has led to clients having incompatible
implementations. This changes the specification to be more explicit
about them:
* VHOST_USER_ADD_MEM_REG is not specified as receiving a file
descriptor, though it obviously does need to do so. All
implementations agree on this one, fix the specification.
* VHOST_USER_REM_MEM_REG is not specified as receiving a file
descriptor either, and it also has no reason to do so. rust-vmm does
not send file descriptors for removing a memory region (in agreement
with the specification), libvhost-user and QEMU do (which is a bug),
though libvhost-user doesn't actually make any use of it.
Change the specification so that for compatibility QEMU's behaviour
becomes legal, even if discouraged, but rust-vmm's behaviour becomes
the explicitly recommended mode of operation.
* VHOST_USER_ADD_MEM_REG doesn't have a documented return value, which
is the desired behaviour in the non-postcopy case. It also implemented
like this in QEMU and rust-vmm, though libvhost-user is buggy and
sometimes sends an unexpected reply. This will be fixed in a separate
patch.
However, in postcopy mode it does reply like VHOST_USER_SET_MEM_TABLE.
This behaviour is shared between libvhost-user and QEMU; rust-vmm
doesn't implement postcopy mode yet. Mention it explicitly in the
spec.
* The specification doesn't mention how VHOST_USER_REM_MEM_REG
identifies the memory region to be removed. Change it to describe the
existing behaviour of libvhost-user (guest address, user address and
size must match).
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20220407133657.155281-2-kwolf@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Raphael Norwitz <raphael.norwitz@nutanix.com>
Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Add a section explaining how vhost-user is supported on platforms
other than Linux.
Signed-off-by: Sergio Lopez <slp@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20220304100854.14829-5-slp@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Our built HTML documentation now has a standard footer which
gives the license for QEMU (and its documentation as a whole).
In almost all pages, we either don't bother to state the
copyright/license for the individual rST sources, or we put
it in an rST comment. There are just three pages which render
copyright or license information into the user-visible HTML.
Quoting a specific (different) license for an individual HTML
page within the manual is confusing. Downgrade the license
and copyright info to a comment within the rST source, bringing
these pages in line with the rest of our documents.
Suggested-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Cleber Rosa <crosa@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Acked-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Message-id: 20210722192016.24915-3-peter.maydell@linaro.org
While we do mention some of this stuff in the various daemons and
manuals the subtleties of the socket and memory sharing are sometimes
missed. This document attempts to give some background on vhost-user
daemons in general terms.
Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20210720232703.10650-4-alex.bennee@linaro.org>
Fix also a similar typo in a code comment.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil <sw@weilnetz.de>
Message-Id: <20201117193448.393472-1-sw@weilnetz.de>
Reviewed-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
QEMU currently truncates the mmap_offset field when sending
VHOST_USER_ADD_MEM_REG and VHOST_USER_REM_MEM_REG messages. The struct
layout looks like this:
typedef struct VhostUserMemoryRegion {
uint64_t guest_phys_addr;
uint64_t memory_size;
uint64_t userspace_addr;
uint64_t mmap_offset;
} VhostUserMemoryRegion;
typedef struct VhostUserMemRegMsg {
uint32_t padding;
/* WARNING: there is a 32-bit hole here! */
VhostUserMemoryRegion region;
} VhostUserMemRegMsg;
The payload size is calculated as follows when sending the message in
hw/virtio/vhost-user.c:
msg->hdr.size = sizeof(msg->payload.mem_reg.padding) +
sizeof(VhostUserMemoryRegion);
This calculation produces an incorrect result of only 36 bytes.
sizeof(VhostUserMemRegMsg) is actually 40 bytes.
The consequence of this is that the final field, mmap_offset, is
truncated. This breaks x86_64 TCG guests on s390 hosts. Other guest/host
combinations may get lucky if either of the following holds:
1. The guest memory layout does not need mmap_offset != 0.
2. The host is little-endian and mmap_offset <= 0xffffffff so the
truncation has no effect.
Fix this by extending the existing 32-bit padding field to 64-bit. Now
the padding reflects the actual compiler padding. This can be verified
using pahole(1).
Also document the layout properly in the vhost-user specification. The
vhost-user spec did not document the exact layout. It would be
impossible to implement the spec without looking at the QEMU source
code.
Existing vhost-user frontends and device backends continue to work after
this fix has been applied. The only change in the wire protocol is that
QEMU now sets hdr.size to 40 instead of 36. If a vhost-user
implementation has a hardcoded size check for 36 bytes, then it will
fail with new QEMUs. Both QEMU and DPDK/SPDK don't check the exact
payload size, so they continue to work.
Fixes: f1aeb14b08 ("Transmit vhost-user memory regions individually")
Cc: Raphael Norwitz <raphael.norwitz@nutanix.com>
Cc: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20201109174355.1069147-1-stefanha@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Fixes: f1aeb14b08 ("Transmit vhost-user memory regions individually")
Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Raphael Norwitz <raphael.norwitz@nutanix.com>
I found that there are many spelling errors in the comments of qemu,
so I used the spellcheck tool to check the spelling errors
and finally found some spelling errors in the docs folder.
Signed-off-by: zhaolichang <zhaolichang@huawei.com>
Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Message-Id: <20200917075029.313-4-zhaolichang@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Laurent Vivier <laurent@vivier.eu>
This patch specifies the VHOST_USER_SET_STATUS and
VHOST_USER_GET_STATUS requests, which are sent by
the master to update and query the Virtio status
in the backend.
Signed-off-by: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20200618134501.145747-1-maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
Acked-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Historically, sending all memory regions to vhost-user backends in a
single message imposed a limitation on the number of times memory
could be hot-added to a VM with a vhost-user device. Now that backends
which support the VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_CONFIGURE_SLOTS send memory
regions individually, we no longer need to impose this limitation on
devices which support this feature.
With this change, VMs with a vhost-user device which supports the
VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_CONFIGURE_MEM_SLOTS can support a configurable
number of memory slots, up to the maximum allowed by the target
platform.
Existing backends which do not support
VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_CONFIGURE_MEM_SLOTS are unaffected.
Signed-off-by: Raphael Norwitz <raphael.norwitz@nutanix.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Turschmid <peter.turschm@nutanix.com>
Suggested-by: Mike Cui <cui@nutanix.com>
Message-Id: <1588533678-23450-6-git-send-email-raphael.norwitz@nutanix.com>
Reviewed-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com>
With this change, when the VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_CONFIGURE_MEM_SLOTS
protocol feature has been negotiated, Qemu no longer sends the backend
all the memory regions in a single message. Rather, when the memory
tables are set or updated, a series of VHOST_USER_ADD_MEM_REG and
VHOST_USER_REM_MEM_REG messages are sent to transmit the regions to map
and/or unmap instead of sending send all the regions in one fixed size
VHOST_USER_SET_MEM_TABLE message.
The vhost_user struct maintains a shadow state of the VM’s memory
regions. When the memory tables are modified, the
vhost_user_set_mem_table() function compares the new device memory state
to the shadow state and only sends regions which need to be unmapped or
mapped in. The regions which must be unmapped are sent first, followed
by the new regions to be mapped in. After all the messages have been
sent, the shadow state is set to the current virtual device state.
Existing backends which do not support
VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_CONFIGURE_MEM_SLOTS are unaffected.
Signed-off-by: Raphael Norwitz <raphael.norwitz@nutanix.com>
Signed-off-by: Swapnil Ingle <swapnil.ingle@nutanix.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Turschmid <peter.turschm@nutanix.com>
Suggested-by: Mike Cui <cui@nutanix.com>
Message-Id: <1588533678-23450-5-git-send-email-raphael.norwitz@nutanix.com>
Reviewed-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Acked-by: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com>
This change introduces a new feature to the vhost-user protocol allowing
a backend device to specify the maximum number of ram slots it supports.
At this point, the value returned by the backend will be capped at the
maximum number of ram slots which can be supported by vhost-user, which
is currently set to 8 because of underlying protocol limitations.
The returned value will be stored inside the VhostUserState struct so
that on device reconnect we can verify that the ram slot limitation
has not decreased since the last time the device connected.
Signed-off-by: Raphael Norwitz <raphael.norwitz@nutanix.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Turschmid <peter.turschm@nutanix.com>
Message-Id: <1588533678-23450-4-git-send-email-raphael.norwitz@nutanix.com>
Reviewed-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com>
Description copied from Linux kernel commit from Gustavo A. R. Silva
(see [3]):
--v-- description start --v--
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to
declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible
array member [1], introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler
warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the
structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined
behavior bugs from being unadvertenly introduced [2] to the
Linux codebase from now on.
--^-- description end --^--
Do the similar housekeeping in the QEMU codebase (which uses
C99 since commit 7be41675f7).
All these instances of code were found with the help of the
following command (then manual analysis, without modifying
structures only having a single flexible array member, such
QEDTable in block/qed.h):
git grep -F '[0];'
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=76497732932f
[3] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gustavoars/linux.git/commit/?id=17642a2fbd2c1
Inspired-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
For good reason, vhost-user is currently built asynchronously, that
way better performance can be obtained. However, for certain use
cases such as simulation, this is problematic.
Consider an event-based simulation in which both the device and CPU
have scheduled according to a simulation "calendar". Now, consider
the CPU sending I/O to the device, over a vring in the vhost-user
protocol. In this case, the CPU must wait for the vring interrupt
to have been processed by the device, so that the device is able to
put an entry onto the simulation calendar to obtain time to handle
the interrupt. Note that this doesn't mean the I/O is actually done
at this time, it just means that the handling of it is scheduled
before the CPU can continue running.
This cannot be done with the asynchronous eventfd based vring kick
and call design.
Extend the protocol slightly, so that a message can be used for kick
and call instead, if VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_INBAND_NOTIFICATIONS is
negotiated. This in itself doesn't guarantee synchronisation, but both
sides can also negotiate VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_REPLY_ACK and thus get
a reply to this message by setting the need_reply flag, and ensure
synchronisation this way.
To really use it in both directions, VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_SLAVE_REQ
is also needed.
Since it is used for simulation purposes and too many messages on
the socket can lock up the virtual machine, document that this should
only be used together with the mentioned features.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Message-Id: <20200123081708.7817-6-johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Reviewed-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Add a VHOST_USER_RESET_DEVICE message which will reset the vhost user
backend. Disabling all rings, and resetting all internal state, ready
for the backend to be reinitialized.
A backend has to report it supports this features with the
VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_RESET_DEVICE protocol feature bit. If it does
so, the new message is used instead of sending a RESET_OWNER which has
had inconsistent implementations.
Signed-off-by: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@nutanix.com>
Signed-off-by: Raphael Norwitz <raphael.norwitz@nutanix.com>
Message-Id: <1572385083-5254-2-git-send-email-raphael.norwitz@nutanix.com>
Reviewed-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
This patch is to add standard commands defined in docs/interop/vhost-user.rst
For vhost-user-* program
Signed-off-by: Micky Yun Chan (michiboo) <chanmickyyun@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <20191209015331.5455-1-chanmickyyun@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
The vhost-user specification does not explain when
VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_MQ must be implemented. This may lead
implementors of vhost-user masters to believe that this protocol feature
is required for any device that has multiple virtqueues. That would be
a mistake since existing vhost-user slaves offer multiple virtqueues but
do not advertise VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_MQ.
For example, a vhost-net device with one rx/tx queue pair is not
multiqueue. The slave does not need to advertise
VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_MQ. Therefore the master must assume it has these
virtqueues and cannot rely on askingt the slave how many virtqueues
exist.
Extend the specification to explain the different between true
multiqueue and regular devices with a fixed virtqueue layout.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20190624091304.666-1-stefanha@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com>
The "Multiple queue support" section makes references to vhost-user-net
"queue pairs". This is confusing for two reasons:
1. This actually applies to all device types, not just vhost-user-net.
2. VHOST_USER_GET_QUEUE_NUM returns the number of virtqueues, not the
number of queue pairs.
Reword the section so that the vhost-user-net specific part is relegated
to the very end: we acknowledge that vhost-user-net historically
automatically enabled the first queue pair.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20190626074815.19994-5-stefanha@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Add a new vhost-user message to give a unix socket to a vhost-user
backend for GPU display updates.
Back when I started that work, I added a new GPU channel because the
vhost-user protocol wasn't bidirectional. Since then, there is a
vhost-user-slave channel for the slave to send requests to the master.
We could extend it with GPU messages. However, the GPU protocol is
quite orthogonal to vhost-user, thus I chose to have a new dedicated
channel.
See vhost-user-gpu.rst for the protocol details.
Signed-off-by: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com>
Message-id: 20190524130946.31736-2-marcandre.lureau@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20190315180735.13096-1-marcandre.lureau@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jens Freimann <jfreimann@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
