"
On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 9:01 AM Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> +Saravana
>
> On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 06:58:13PM -0700, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 May 2022, Oleksandr wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 19 May 2022, Oleksandr wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 5:06 PM Oleksandr <olekstysh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 18.05.22 17:32, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sat, May 7, 2022 at 7:19 PM Oleksandr Tyshchenko
> > > > > > > > > <olekstysh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > This would mean having a device
> > > > > > > > > node for the grant-table mechanism that can be referred to using
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > 'iommus'
> > > > > > > > > phandle property, with the domid as an additional argument.
> > > > > > > > I assume, you are speaking about something like the following?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > xen_dummy_iommu {
> > > > > > > > compatible = "xen,dummy-iommu";
> > > > > > > > #iommu-cells = <1>;
> > > > > > > > };
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > virtio@3000 {
> > > > > > > > compatible = "virtio,mmio";
> > > > > > > > reg = <0x3000 0x100>;
> > > > > > > > interrupts = <41>;
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > /* The device is located in Xen domain with ID 1 */
> > > > > > > > iommus = <&xen_dummy_iommu 1>;
> > > > > > > > };
> > > > > > > Right, that's that's the idea,
> > > > > > thank you for the confirmation
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > except I would not call it a 'dummy'.
> > > > > > > From the perspective of the DT, this behaves just like an IOMMU,
> > > > > > > even if the exact mechanism is different from most hardware IOMMU
> > > > > > > implementations.
> > > > > > well, agree
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It does not quite fit the model that Linux currently uses for
> > > > > > > > > iommus,
> > > > > > > > > as that has an allocator for dma_addr_t space
> > > > > > > > yes (# 3/7 adds grant-table based allocator)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > , but it would think it's
> > > > > > > > > conceptually close enough that it makes sense for the binding.
> > > > > > > > Interesting idea. I am wondering, do we need an extra actions for
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > to work in Linux guest (dummy IOMMU driver, etc)?
> > > > > > > It depends on how closely the guest implementation can be made to
> > > > > > > resemble a normal iommu. If you do allocate dma_addr_t addresses,
> > > > > > > it may actually be close enough that you can just turn the grant-table
> > > > > > > code into a normal iommu driver and change nothing else.
> > > > > > Unfortunately, I failed to find a way how use grant references at the
> > > > > > iommu_ops level (I mean to fully pretend that we are an IOMMU driver). I
> > > > > > am
> > > > > > not too familiar with that, so what is written below might be wrong or
> > > > > > at
> > > > > > least not precise.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The normal IOMMU driver in Linux doesn’t allocate DMA addresses by
> > > > > > itself, it
> > > > > > just maps (IOVA-PA) what was requested to be mapped by the upper layer.
> > > > > > The
> > > > > > DMA address allocation is done by the upper layer (DMA-IOMMU which is
> > > > > > the glue
> > > > > > layer between DMA API and IOMMU API allocates IOVA for PA?). But, all
> > > > > > what we
> > > > > > need here is just to allocate our specific grant-table based DMA
> > > > > > addresses
> > > > > > (DMA address = grant reference + offset in the page), so let’s say we
> > > > > > need an
> > > > > > entity to take a physical address as parameter and return a DMA address
> > > > > > (what
> > > > > > actually commit #3/7 is doing), and that’s all. So working at the
> > > > > > dma_ops
> > > > > > layer we get exactly what we need, with the minimal changes to guest
> > > > > > infrastructure. In our case the Xen itself acts as an IOMMU.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Assuming that we want to reuse the IOMMU infrastructure somehow for our
> > > > > > needs.
> > > > > > I think, in that case we will likely need to introduce a new specific
> > > > > > IOVA
> > > > > > allocator (alongside with a generic one) to be hooked up by the
> > > > > > DMA-IOMMU
> > > > > > layer if we run on top of Xen. But, even having the specific IOVA
> > > > > > allocator to
> > > > > > return what we indeed need (DMA address = grant reference + offset in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > page) we will still need the specific minimal required IOMMU driver to
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > present in the system anyway in order to track the mappings(?) and do
> > > > > > nothing
> > > > > > with them, returning a success (this specific IOMMU driver should have
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > mandatory callbacks implemented).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I completely agree, it would be really nice to reuse generic IOMMU
> > > > > > bindings
> > > > > > rather than introducing Xen specific property if what we are trying to
> > > > > > implement in current patch series fits in the usage of "iommus" in Linux
> > > > > > more-less. But, if we will have to add more complexity/more components
> > > > > > to the
> > > > > > code for the sake of reusing device tree binding, this raises a question
> > > > > > whether that’s worthwhile.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Or I really missed something?
> > > > > I think Arnd was primarily suggesting to reuse the IOMMU Device Tree
> > > > > bindings, not necessarily the IOMMU drivers framework in Linux (although
> > > > > that would be an added bonus.)
> > > > >
> > > > > I know from previous discussions with you that making the grant table
> > > > > fit in the existing IOMMU drivers model is difficult, but just reusing
> > > > > the Device Tree bindings seems feasible?
> > > >
> > > > I started experimenting with that. As wrote in a separate email, I got a
> > > > deferred probe timeout,
> > > >
> > > > after inserting required nodes into guest device tree, which seems to be a
> > > > consequence of the unavailability of IOMMU, I will continue to investigate
> > > > this question.
> > >
> > >
> > > I have experimented with that. Yes, just reusing the Device Tree bindings is
> > > technically feasible (and we are able to do this by only touching
> > > grant-dma-ops.c), although deferred probe timeout still stands (as there is no
> > > IOMMU driver being present actually).
> > >
> > > [ 0.583771] virtio-mmio 2000000.virtio: deferred probe timeout, ignoring
> > > dependency
> > > [ 0.615556] virtio_blk virtio0: [vda] 4096000 512-byte logical blocks (2.10
> > > GB/1.95 GiB)
> > >
> > >
> > > Below the working diff (on top of current series):
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/xen/grant-dma-ops.c b/drivers/xen/grant-dma-ops.c
> > > index da9c7ff..6586152 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/xen/grant-dma-ops.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/xen/grant-dma-ops.c
> > > @@ -272,17 +272,24 @@ static const struct dma_map_ops xen_grant_dma_ops = {
> > >
> > > bool xen_is_grant_dma_device(struct device *dev)
> > > {
> > > + struct device_node *iommu_np;
> > > + bool has_iommu;
> > > +
> > > /* XXX Handle only DT devices for now */
> > > if (!dev->of_node)
> > > return false;
> > >
> > > - return of_property_read_bool(dev->of_node, "xen,backend-domid");
> > > + iommu_np = of_parse_phandle(dev->of_node, "iommus", 0);
> > > + has_iommu = iommu_np && of_device_is_compatible(iommu_np,
> > > "xen,grant-dma");
> > > + of_node_put(iommu_np);
> > > +
> > > + return has_iommu;
> > > }
> > >
> > > void xen_grant_setup_dma_ops(struct device *dev)
> > > {
> > > struct xen_grant_dma_data *data;
> > > - uint32_t domid;
> > > + struct of_phandle_args iommu_spec;
> > >
> > > data = find_xen_grant_dma_data(dev);
> > > if (data) {
> > > @@ -294,16 +301,30 @@ void xen_grant_setup_dma_ops(struct device *dev)
> > > if (!dev->of_node)
> > > goto err;
> > >
> > > - if (of_property_read_u32(dev->of_node, "xen,backend-domid", &domid)) {
> > > - dev_err(dev, "xen,backend-domid property is not present\n");
> > > + if (of_parse_phandle_with_args(dev->of_node, "iommus", "#iommu-cells",
> > > + 0, &iommu_spec)) {
> > > + dev_err(dev, "Cannot parse iommus property\n");
> > > + goto err;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + if (!of_device_is_compatible(iommu_spec.np, "xen,grant-dma") ||
> > > + iommu_spec.args_count != 1) {
> > > + dev_err(dev, "Incompatible IOMMU node\n");
> > > + of_node_put(iommu_spec.np);
> > > goto err;
> > > }
> > >
> > > + of_node_put(iommu_spec.np);
> > > +
> > > data = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*data), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > if (!data)
> > > goto err;
> > >
> > > - data->backend_domid = domid;
> > > + /*
> > > + * The endpoint ID here means the ID of the domain where the
> > > corresponding
> > > + * backend is running
> > > + */
> > > + data->backend_domid = iommu_spec.args[0];
> > >
> > > if (xa_err(xa_store(&xen_grant_dma_devices, (unsigned long)dev, data,
> > > GFP_KERNEL))) {
> > > (END)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Below, the nodes generated by Xen toolstack:
> > >
> > > xen_grant_dma {
>
> Nit: iommu {
>
> > > compatible = "xen,grant-dma";
> > > #iommu-cells = <0x01>;
> > > phandle = <0xfde9>;
> > > };
> > >
> > > virtio@2000000 {
> > > compatible = "virtio,mmio";
> > > reg = <0x00 0x2000000 0x00 0x200>;
> > > interrupts = <0x00 0x01 0xf01>;
> > > interrupt-parent = <0xfde8>;
> > > dma-coherent;
> > > iommus = <0xfde9 0x01>;
> > > };
> >
> > Not bad! I like it.
> >
> >
> > > I am wondering, would be the proper solution to eliminate deferred probe
> > > timeout issue in our particular case (without introducing an extra IOMMU
> > > driver)?
> >
> > In reality I don't think there is a way to do that. I would create an
> > empty skelethon IOMMU driver for xen,grant-dma.
>
> Does it have to be an empty driver? Originally, IOMMU 'drivers' were not
> drivers, but they've been getting converted. Can that be done here?
>
> Short of that, I think we could have some sort of skip probe list for
> deferred probe. Not sure if that would be easiest as IOMMU specific or
> global.
Hi Oleksandr,
If you do fw_devlink.strict=1, you'll notice that the consumers of
this "iommu" won't probe at all or will delay the boot by some number
of seconds. The eventual goal is to go towards fw_devlink.strict=1
being the default.
>From a fw_devlik perspective, please implement a driver. Ideally a
real one, but at least an empty one. The empty one doesn't need to be
an IOMMU driver, but at least just do a return 0 in the probe
function. Also, if it's not a device, why even have a "compatible"
property (removing it won't necessarily remove the deferred probe
timeout issue you see)? Will any code be using "xen,grant-dma" to look
up the node? If so, that driver could be the one that probes this
device. At least from a fw_devlink perspective, it just needs to have
a driver that binds to this device.
Also, if we aren't going to implement a driver and have the supplier
("xen,grant-dma") behave like a device (as in, have a driver that
probes), I'd rather that the iommu binding not be used at all as this
would be an exception to how every other iommu device behaves.
-Saravana
