On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 11:20:40 +0000
"Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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?
+1
> 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,
What's going on with these ioctl numbers? AFAICT[1] we've used up
through VFIO_BASE + 21, this jumps to 24, the next patch skips to 27,
then the last patch fills in 28 & 29. Thanks,
Alex
[1] git grep -h VFIO_BASE | grep "VFIO_BASE +" | grep -e ^#define | \
awk '{print $NF}' | tr -d ')' | sort -u -n
