On 22.07.19 13:43, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 13:20:18 +0200 > Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 22.07.19 12:56, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: >>> * Christian Borntraeger (borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 18.07.19 16:30, Dan Williams wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 6:15 AM Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 07:27:25PM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, 15 May 2019 15:27:03 -0400 >>>>>>> Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Setup a dax device. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Use the shm capability to find the cache entry and map it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The DAX window is accessed by the fs/dax.c infrastructure and must have >>>>>>>> struct pages (at least on x86). Use devm_memremap_pages() to map the >>>>>>>> DAX window PCI BAR and allocate struct page. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sorry for being this late. I don't see any more recent version so I will >>>>>>> comment here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm trying to figure out how is this supposed to work on s390. My concern >>>>>>> is, that on s390 PCI memory needs to be accessed by special >>>>>>> instructions. This is taken care of by the stuff defined in >>>>>>> arch/s390/include/asm/io.h. E.g. we 'override' __raw_writew so it uses >>>>>>> the appropriate s390 instruction. However if the code does not use the >>>>>>> linux abstractions for accessing PCI memory, but assumes it can be >>>>>>> accessed like RAM, we have a problem. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Looking at this patch, it seems to me, that we might end up with exactly >>>>>>> the case described. For example AFAICT copy_to_iter() (3) resolves to >>>>>>> the function in lib/iov_iter.c which does not seem to cater for s390 >>>>>>> oddities. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I didn't have the time to investigate this properly, and since virtio-fs >>>>>>> is virtual, we may be able to get around what is otherwise a >>>>>>> limitation on s390. My understanding of these areas is admittedly >>>>>>> shallow, and since I'm not sure I'll have much more time to >>>>>>> invest in the near future I decided to raise concern. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Any opinions? >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Halil, >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't understand s390 and how PCI works there as well. Is there any >>>>>> other transport we can use there to map IO memory directly and access >>>>>> using DAX? >>>>>> >>>>>> BTW, is DAX supported for s390. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am also hoping somebody who knows better can chip in. Till that time, >>>>>> we could still use virtio-fs on s390 without DAX. >>>>> >>>>> s390 has so-called "limited" dax support, see CONFIG_FS_DAX_LIMITED. >>>>> In practice that means that support for PTE_DEVMAP is missing which >>>>> means no get_user_pages() support for dax mappings. Effectively it's >>>>> only useful for execute-in-place as operations like fork() and ptrace >>>>> of dax mappings will fail. >>>> >>>> >>>> This is only true for the dcssblk device driver (drivers/s390/block/dcssblk.c >>>> and arch/s390/mm/extmem.c). >>>> >>>> For what its worth, the dcssblk looks to Linux like normal memory (just above the >>>> previously detected memory) that can be used like normal memory. In previous time >>>> we even had struct pages for this memory - this was removed long ago (when it was >>>> still xip) to reduce the memory footprint for large dcss blocks and small memory >>>> guests. >>>> Can the CONFIG_FS_DAX_LIMITED go away if we have struct pages for that memory? >>>> >>>> Now some observations: >>>> - dcssblk is z/VM only (not KVM) >>>> - Setting CONFIG_FS_DAX_LIMITED globally as a Kconfig option depending on wether >>>> a device driver is compiled in or not seems not flexible enough in case if you >>>> have device driver that does have struct pages and another one that doesn't >>>> - I do not see a reason why we should not be able to map anything from QEMU >>>> into the guest real memory via an additional KVM memory slot. >>>> We would need to handle that in the guest somehow (and not as a PCI bar), >>>> register this with struct pages etc. > > You mean for ccw, right? I don't think we want pci to behave > differently than everywhere else. Yes for virtio-ccw. We would need to have a look at how virtio-ccw can create a memory mapping with struct pages, so that DAX will work.(Dan, it is just struct pages that you need, correct?) > >>>> - we must then look how we can create the link between the guest memory and the >>>> virtio-fs driver. For virtio-ccw we might be able to add a new ccw command or >>>> whatever. Maybe we could also piggy-back on some memory hotplug work from David >>>> Hildenbrand (add cc). >>>> >>>> Regarding limitations on the platform: >>>> - while we do have PCI, the virtio devices are usually plugged via the ccw bus. >>>> That implies no PCI bars. I assume you use those PCI bars only to implicitely >>>> have the location of the shared memory >>>> Correct? >>> >>> Right. >> >> So in essence we just have to provide a vm_get_shm_region callback in the virtio-ccw >> guest code? >> >> How many regions do we have to support? One region per device? Or many? >> Even if we need more, this should be possible with a 2 new CCWs, e.g READ_SHM_BASE(id) >> and READ_SHM_SIZE(id) > > I'd just add a single CCW with a control block containing id and size. > > The main issue is where we put those regions, and what happens if we > use both virtio-pci and virtio-ccw on the same machine. Then these 2 devices should get independent memory regions that are added in an independent (but still exclusive) way. > >> >> >>> >>>> - no real memory mapped I/O. Instead there are instructions that work on the mmio. >>>> As I understand things, this is of no concern regarding virtio-fs as you do not >>>> need mmio in the sense that a memory access of the guest to such an address >>>> triggers an exit. You just need the shared memory as a mean to have the data >>>> inside the guest. Any notification is done via normal virtqueue mechanisms >>>> Correct? >>> >>> Yep. >> >
