Hi Kevin,
> From: Tian, Kevin
> Sent: Friday, October 25, 2019 5:14 PM
> To: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@xxxxxxxxx>; alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx;
> Subject: RE: [RFC v2 1/3] vfio: VFIO_IOMMU_CACHE_INVALIDATE
>
> > From: Liu, Yi L
> > Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2019 8:26 PM
> >
> > From: Liu Yi L <yi.l.liu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > When the guest "owns" the stage 1 translation structures, the host
> > IOMMU driver has no knowledge of caching structure updates unless the
> > guest invalidation requests are trapped and passed down to the host.
> >
> > This patch adds the VFIO_IOMMU_CACHE_INVALIDATE ioctl with aims at
> > propagating guest stage1 IOMMU cache invalidations to the host.
> >
> > Cc: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Liu Yi L <yi.l.liu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c | 55
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > include/uapi/linux/vfio.h | 13 ++++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 68 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> > b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c index 96fddc1d..cd8d3a5 100644
> > --- a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> > +++ b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> > @@ -124,6 +124,34 @@ struct vfio_regions {
> > #define IS_IOMMU_CAP_DOMAIN_IN_CONTAINER(iommu) \
> > (!list_empty(&iommu->domain_list))
> >
> > +struct domain_capsule {
> > + struct iommu_domain *domain;
> > + void *data;
> > +};
> > +
> > +/* iommu->lock must be held */
> > +static int
> > +vfio_iommu_lookup_dev(struct vfio_iommu *iommu,
> > + int (*fn)(struct device *dev, void *data),
> > + void *data)
>
> 'lookup' usually means find a device and then return. But the real purpose here is to
> loop all the devices within this container and then do something. Does it make more
> sense to be vfio_iommu_for_each_dev?
yep, I can replace it.
>
> > +{
> > + struct domain_capsule dc = {.data = data};
> > + struct vfio_domain *d;
[...]
> 2315,6 +2352,24 @@
> > static long vfio_iommu_type1_ioctl(void *iommu_data,
> >
> > return copy_to_user((void __user *)arg, &unmap, minsz) ?
> > -EFAULT : 0;
> > + } else if (cmd == VFIO_IOMMU_CACHE_INVALIDATE) {
> > + struct vfio_iommu_type1_cache_invalidate ustruct;
>
> it's weird to call a variable as struct.
Will fix it.
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + minsz = offsetofend(struct
> > vfio_iommu_type1_cache_invalidate,
> > + info);
> > +
> > + if (copy_from_user(&ustruct, (void __user *)arg, minsz))
> > + return -EFAULT;
> > +
> > + if (ustruct.argsz < minsz || ustruct.flags)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + mutex_lock(&iommu->lock);
> > + ret = vfio_iommu_lookup_dev(iommu, vfio_cache_inv_fn,
> > + &ustruct);
> > + mutex_unlock(&iommu->lock);
> > + return ret;
> > }
> >
> > return -ENOTTY;
> > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h b/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h
> > index 9e843a1..ccf60a2 100644
> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h
> > @@ -794,6 +794,19 @@ struct vfio_iommu_type1_dma_unmap {
> > #define VFIO_IOMMU_ENABLE _IO(VFIO_TYPE, VFIO_BASE + 15)
> > #define VFIO_IOMMU_DISABLE _IO(VFIO_TYPE, VFIO_BASE + 16)
> >
> > +/**
> > + * VFIO_IOMMU_CACHE_INVALIDATE - _IOWR(VFIO_TYPE, VFIO_BASE +
> > 24,
> > + * struct vfio_iommu_type1_cache_invalidate)
> > + *
> > + * Propagate guest IOMMU cache invalidation to the host.
>
> guest or first-level/stage-1? Ideally userspace application may also bind its own
> address space as stage-1 one day...
Should be first-level/stage-1. Will correct it.
Thanks,
Yi Liu
