On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 11:52 AM Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 2021/3/8 11:45 上午, Yongji Xie wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 11:17 AM Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On 2021/3/5 3:59 下午, Yongji Xie wrote: > >>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 3:27 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> On 2021/3/5 3:13 下午, Yongji Xie wrote: > >>>>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 2:52 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>>> On 2021/3/5 2:15 下午, Yongji Xie wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sorry if I've asked this before. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> But what's the reason for maintaing a dedicated IOTLB here? I think we > >>>>>> could reuse vduse_dev->iommu since the device can not be used by both > >>>>>> virtio and vhost in the same time or use vduse_iova_domain->iotlb for > >>>>>> set_map(). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The main difference between domain->iotlb and dev->iotlb is the way to > >>>>>> deal with bounce buffer. In the domain->iotlb case, bounce buffer > >>>>>> needs to be mapped each DMA transfer because we need to get the bounce > >>>>>> pages by an IOVA during DMA unmapping. In the dev->iotlb case, bounce > >>>>>> buffer only needs to be mapped once during initialization, which will > >>>>>> be used to tell userspace how to do mmap(). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Also, since vhost IOTLB support per mapping token (opauqe), can we use > >>>>>> that instead of the bounce_pages *? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sorry, I didn't get you here. Which value do you mean to store in the > >>>>>> opaque pointer？ > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So I would like to have a way to use a single IOTLB for manage all kinds > >>>>>> of mappings. Two possible ideas: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 1) map bounce page one by one in vduse_dev_map_page(), in > >>>>>> VDUSE_IOTLB_GET_FD, try to merge the result if we had the same fd. Then > >>>>>> for bounce pages, userspace still only need to map it once and we can > >>>>>> maintain the actual mapping by storing the page or pa in the opaque > >>>>>> field of IOTLB entry. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Looks like userspace still needs to unmap the old region and map a new > >>>>>> region (size is changed) with the fd in each VDUSE_IOTLB_GET_FD ioctl. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I don't get here. Can you give an example? > >>>>>> > >>>>> For example, userspace needs to process two I/O requests (one page per > >>>>> request). To process the first request, userspace uses > >>>>> VDUSE_IOTLB_GET_FD ioctl to query the iova region (0 ~ 4096) and mmap > >>>>> it. > >>>> I think in this case we should let VDUSE_IOTLB_GET_FD return the maximum > >>>> range as far as they are backed by the same fd. > >>>> > >>> But now the bounce page is mapped one by one. The second page (4096 ~ > >>> 8192) might not be mapped when userspace is processing the first > >>> request. So the maximum range is 0 ~ 4096 at that time. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Yongji > >> > >> A question, if I read the code correctly, VDUSE_IOTLB_GET_FD will return > >> the whole bounce map range which is setup in vduse_dev_map_page()? So my > >> understanding is that usersapce may choose to map all its range via mmap(). > >> > > Yes. > > > >> So if we 'map' bounce page one by one in vduse_dev_map_page(). (Here > >> 'map' means using multiple itree entries instead of a single one). Then > >> in the VDUSE_IOTLB_GET_FD we can keep traversing itree (dev->iommu) > >> until the range is backed by a different file. > >> > >> With this, there's no userspace visible changes and there's no need for > >> the domain->iotlb? > >> > > In this case, I wonder what range can be obtained if userspace calls > > VDUSE_IOTLB_GET_FD when the first I/O (e.g. 4K) occurs. [0, 4K] or [0, > > 64M]? In current implementation, userspace will map [0, 64M]. > > > It should still be [0, 64M). Do you see any issue? > Does it mean we still need to map the whole bounce buffer into itree (dev->iommu) at initialization? Thanks, Yongji
