On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 05:06:25AM +0800, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 00:26:07 +0530
> Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On 11/14/2019 1:37 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 01:07:21 +0530
> > > Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 11/13/2019 4:00 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > >>> On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 22:33:37 +0530
> > >>> Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> All pages pinned by vendor driver through vfio_pin_pages API should be
> > >>>> considered as dirty during migration. IOMMU container maintains a list of
> > >>>> all such pinned pages. Added an ioctl defination to get bitmap of such
> > >>>
> > >>> definition
> > >>>
> > >>>> pinned pages for requested IO virtual address range.
> > >>>
> > >>> Additionally, all mapped pages are considered dirty when physically
> > >>> mapped through to an IOMMU, modulo we discussed devices opting in to
> > >>> per page pinning to indicate finer granularity with a TBD mechanism to
> > >>> figure out if any non-opt-in devices remain.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> You mean, in case of device direct assignment (device pass through)?
> > >
> > > Yes, or IOMMU backed mdevs. If vfio_dmas in the container are fully
> > > pinned and mapped, then the correct dirty page set is all mapped pages.
> > > We discussed using the vpfn list as a mechanism for vendor drivers to
> > > reduce their migration footprint, but we also discussed that we would
> > > need a way to determine that all participants in the container have
> > > explicitly pinned their working pages or else we must consider the
> > > entire potential working set as dirty.
> > >
> >
> > How can vendor driver tell this capability to iommu module? Any suggestions?
>
> I think it does so by pinning pages. Is it acceptable that if the
> vendor driver pins any pages, then from that point forward we consider
> the IOMMU group dirty page scope to be limited to pinned pages? There
we should also be aware of that dirty page scope is pinned pages + unpinned pages,
which means ever since a page is pinned, it should be regarded as dirty
no matter whether it's unpinned later. only after log_sync is called and
dirty info retrieved, its dirty state should be cleared.
> are complications around non-singleton IOMMU groups, but I think we're
> already leaning towards that being a non-worthwhile problem to solve.
> So if we require that only singleton IOMMU groups can pin pages and we
> pass the IOMMU group as a parameter to
> vfio_iommu_driver_ops.pin_pages(), then the type1 backend can set a
> flag on its local vfio_group struct to indicate dirty page scope is
> limited to pinned pages. We might want to keep a flag on the
> vfio_iommu struct to indicate if all of the vfio_groups for each
> vfio_domain in the vfio_iommu.domain_list dirty page scope limited to
> pinned pages as an optimization to avoid walking lists too often. Then
> we could test if vfio_iommu.domain_list is not empty and this new flag
> does not limit the dirty page scope, then everything within each
> vfio_dma is considered dirty.
>
> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>>> Reviewed-by: Neo Jia <cjia@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>>> ---
> > >>>> include/uapi/linux/vfio.h | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >>>> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h b/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h
> > >>>> index 35b09427ad9f..6fd3822aa610 100644
> > >>>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h
> > >>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h
> > >>>> @@ -902,6 +902,29 @@ 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_GET_DIRTY_BITMAP - _IOWR(VFIO_TYPE, VFIO_BASE + 17,
> > >>>> + * struct vfio_iommu_type1_dirty_bitmap)
> > >>>> + *
> > >>>> + * IOCTL to get dirty pages bitmap for IOMMU container during migration.
> > >>>> + * Get dirty pages bitmap of given IO virtual addresses range using
> > >>>> + * struct vfio_iommu_type1_dirty_bitmap. Caller sets argsz, which is size of
> > >>>> + * struct vfio_iommu_type1_dirty_bitmap. User should allocate memory to get
> > >>>> + * bitmap and should set size of allocated memory in bitmap_size field.
> > >>>> + * One bit is used to represent per page consecutively starting from iova
> > >>>> + * offset. Bit set indicates page at that offset from iova is dirty.
> > >>>> + */
> > >>>> +struct vfio_iommu_type1_dirty_bitmap {
> > >>>> + __u32 argsz;
> > >>>> + __u32 flags;
> > >>>> + __u64 iova; /* IO virtual address */
> > >>>> + __u64 size; /* Size of iova range */
> > >>>> + __u64 bitmap_size; /* in bytes */
> > >>>
> > >>> This seems redundant. We can calculate the size of the bitmap based on
> > >>> the iova size.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> But in kernel space, we need to validate the size of memory allocated by
> > >> user instead of assuming user is always correct, right?
> > >
> > > What does it buy us for the user to tell us the size? They could be
> > > wrong, they could be malicious. The argsz field on the ioctl is mostly
> > > for the handshake that the user is competent, we should get faults from
> > > the copy-user operation if it's incorrect.
> > >
> >
> > It is to mainly fail safe.
> >
> > >>>> + void __user *bitmap; /* one bit per page */
> > >>>
> > >>> Should we define that as a __u64* to (a) help with the size
> > >>> calculation, and (b) assure that we can use 8-byte ops on it?
> > >>>
> > >>> However, who defines page size? Is it necessarily the processor page
> > >>> size? A physical IOMMU may support page sizes other than the CPU page
> > >>> size. It might be more important to indicate the expected page size
> > >>> than the bitmap size. Thanks,
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> I see in QEMU and in vfio_iommu_type1 module, page sizes considered for
> > >> mapping are CPU page size, 4K. Do we still need to have such argument?
> > >
> > > That assumption exists for backwards compatibility prior to supporting
> > > the iova_pgsizes field in vfio_iommu_type1_info. AFAIK the current
> > > interface has no page size assumptions and we should not add any.
> >
> > So userspace has iova_pgsizes information, which can be input to this
> > ioctl. Bitmap should be considering smallest page size. Does that makes
> > sense?
>
> I'm not sure. I thought I had an argument that the iova_pgsize could
> indicate support for sizes smaller than the processor page size, which
> would make the user responsible for using a different base for their
> page size, but vfio_pgsize_bitmap() already masks out sub-page sizes.
> Clearly the vendor driver is pinning based on processor sized pages,
> but that's independent of an IOMMU and not part of a user ABI.
>
> I'm tempted to say your bitmap_size field has a use here, but it seems
> to fail in validating the user page size at the low extremes. For
> example if we have a single page mapping, the user can specify the iova
> size as 4K (for example), but the minimum bitmap_size they can indicate
> is 1 byte, would we therefore assume the user's bitmap page size is 512
> bytes (ie. they provided us with 8 bits to describe a 4K range)? We'd
> need to be careful to specify that the minimum iova_pgsize indicated
> page size is our lower bound as well. But then what do we do if the
> user provides us with a smaller buffer than we expect? For example, a
> 128MB iova range and only an 8-byte buffer. Do we go ahead and assume
> a 2MB page size and fill the bitmap accordingly or do we generate an
> error? If the latter, might we support that at some point in time and
> is it sufficient to let the user perform trial and error to test if that
> exists? Thanks,
>
> Alex
>
