On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 00:38:49 +0530
Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 3/31/2020 2:28 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 22:20:43 +0530
> > Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> Flag VFIO_IOMMU_INFO_DIRTY_PGS in VFIO_IOMMU_GET_INFO indicates that driver
> >> support dirty pages tracking.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Reviewed-by: Neo Jia <cjia@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c | 3 ++-
> >> include/uapi/linux/vfio.h | 5 +++--
> >> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> >> index 266550bd7307..9fe12b425976 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> >> @@ -2390,7 +2390,8 @@ static long vfio_iommu_type1_ioctl(void *iommu_data,
> >> info.cap_offset = 0; /* output, no-recopy necessary */
> >> }
> >>
> >> - info.flags = VFIO_IOMMU_INFO_PGSIZES;
> >> + info.flags = VFIO_IOMMU_INFO_PGSIZES |
> >> + VFIO_IOMMU_INFO_DIRTY_PGS;
> >>
> >> info.iova_pgsizes = vfio_pgsize_bitmap(iommu);
> >>
> >> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h b/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h
> >> index e3cbf8b78623..0fe7c9a6f211 100644
> >> --- a/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h
> >> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h
> >> @@ -985,8 +985,9 @@ struct vfio_device_feature {
> >> struct vfio_iommu_type1_info {
> >> __u32 argsz;
> >> __u32 flags;
> >> -#define VFIO_IOMMU_INFO_PGSIZES (1 << 0) /* supported page sizes info */
> >> -#define VFIO_IOMMU_INFO_CAPS (1 << 1) /* Info supports caps */
> >> +#define VFIO_IOMMU_INFO_PGSIZES (1 << 0) /* supported page sizes info */
> >> +#define VFIO_IOMMU_INFO_CAPS (1 << 1) /* Info supports caps */
> >> +#define VFIO_IOMMU_INFO_DIRTY_PGS (1 << 2) /* supports dirty page tracking */
> >> __u64 iova_pgsizes; /* Bitmap of supported page sizes */
> >> __u32 cap_offset; /* Offset within info struct of first cap */
> >> };
> >
> >
> > As I just mentioned in my reply to Yan, I'm wondering if
> > VFIO_CHECK_EXTENSION would be a better way to expose this. The
> > difference is relatively trivial, but currently the only flag
> > set by VFIO_IOMMU_GET_INFO is to indicate the presence of a field in
> > the returned structure. I think this is largely true of other INFO
> > ioctls within vfio as well and we're already using the
> > VFIO_CHECK_EXTENSION ioctl to check supported IOMMU models, and IOMMU
> > cache coherency. We'd simply need to define a VFIO_DIRTY_PGS_IOMMU
> > value (9) and return 1 for that case. Then when we enable support for
> > dirt pages that can span multiple mappings, we can add a v2 extensions,
> > or "MULTI" variant of this extension, since it should be backwards
> > compatible.
> >
> > The v2/multi version will again require that the user provide a zero'd
> > bitmap, but I don't think that should be a problem as part of the
> > definition of that version (we won't know if the user is using v1 or
> > v2, but a v1 user should only retrieve bitmaps that exactly match
> > existing mappings, where all bits will be written). Thanks,
> >
> > Alex
> >
>
> I look at these two ioctls as : VFIO_CHECK_EXTENSION is used to get
> IOMMU type, while VFIO_IOMMU_GET_INFO is used to get properties of a
> particular IOMMU type, right?
Not exclusively, see for example VFIO_DMA_CC_IOMMU,
> Then I think VFIO_IOMMU_INFO_DIRTY_PGS should be part of
> VFIO_IOMMU_GET_INFO and when we add code for v2/multi, a flag should be
> added to VFIO_IOMMU_GET_INFO.
Which burns through flags, which is a far more limited resource than
our 32bit extension address space, especially when we're already
planning for one or more extensions to this support. Thanks,
Alex
