On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 12:31 AM Eugenio Perez Martin
<eperezma@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 5:30 AM Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> > 在 2022/11/11 21:12, Eugenio Perez Martin 写道:
> > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 8:49 AM Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> 在 2022/11/10 21:47, Eugenio Perez Martin 写道:
> > >>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 7:01 AM Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>>> On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 1:08 AM Eugenio Pérez <eperezma@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>>>> The memory listener that thells the device how to convert GPA to qemu's
> > >>>>> va is registered against CVQ vhost_vdpa. This series try to map the
> > >>>>> memory listener translations to ASID 0, while it maps the CVQ ones to
> > >>>>> ASID 1.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Let's tell the listener if it needs to register them on iova tree or
> > >>>>> not.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Eugenio Pérez <eperezma@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>>>> ---
> > >>>>> v5: Solve conflict about vhost_iova_tree_remove accepting mem_region by
> > >>>>> value.
> > >>>>> ---
> > >>>>> include/hw/virtio/vhost-vdpa.h | 2 ++
> > >>>>> hw/virtio/vhost-vdpa.c | 6 +++---
> > >>>>> net/vhost-vdpa.c | 1 +
> > >>>>> 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> diff --git a/include/hw/virtio/vhost-vdpa.h b/include/hw/virtio/vhost-vdpa.h
> > >>>>> index 6560bb9d78..0c3ed2d69b 100644
> > >>>>> --- a/include/hw/virtio/vhost-vdpa.h
> > >>>>> +++ b/include/hw/virtio/vhost-vdpa.h
> > >>>>> @@ -34,6 +34,8 @@ typedef struct vhost_vdpa {
> > >>>>> struct vhost_vdpa_iova_range iova_range;
> > >>>>> uint64_t acked_features;
> > >>>>> bool shadow_vqs_enabled;
> > >>>>> + /* The listener must send iova tree addresses, not GPA */
> > >>
> > >> Btw, cindy's vIOMMU series will make it not necessarily GPA any more.
> > >>
> > > Yes, this comment should be tuned then. But the SVQ iova_tree will not
> > > be equal to vIOMMU one because shadow vrings.
> > >
> > > But maybe SVQ can inspect both instead of having all the duplicated entries.
> > >
> > >>>>> + bool listener_shadow_vq;
> > >>>>> /* IOVA mapping used by the Shadow Virtqueue */
> > >>>>> VhostIOVATree *iova_tree;
> > >>>>> GPtrArray *shadow_vqs;
> > >>>>> diff --git a/hw/virtio/vhost-vdpa.c b/hw/virtio/vhost-vdpa.c
> > >>>>> index 8fd32ba32b..e3914fa40e 100644
> > >>>>> --- a/hw/virtio/vhost-vdpa.c
> > >>>>> +++ b/hw/virtio/vhost-vdpa.c
> > >>>>> @@ -220,7 +220,7 @@ static void vhost_vdpa_listener_region_add(MemoryListener *listener,
> > >>>>> vaddr, section->readonly);
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> llsize = int128_sub(llend, int128_make64(iova));
> > >>>>> - if (v->shadow_vqs_enabled) {
> > >>>>> + if (v->listener_shadow_vq) {
> > >>>>> int r;
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> mem_region.translated_addr = (hwaddr)(uintptr_t)vaddr,
> > >>>>> @@ -247,7 +247,7 @@ static void vhost_vdpa_listener_region_add(MemoryListener *listener,
> > >>>>> return;
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> fail_map:
> > >>>>> - if (v->shadow_vqs_enabled) {
> > >>>>> + if (v->listener_shadow_vq) {
> > >>>>> vhost_iova_tree_remove(v->iova_tree, mem_region);
> > >>>>> }
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> @@ -292,7 +292,7 @@ static void vhost_vdpa_listener_region_del(MemoryListener *listener,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> llsize = int128_sub(llend, int128_make64(iova));
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> - if (v->shadow_vqs_enabled) {
> > >>>>> + if (v->listener_shadow_vq) {
> > >>>>> const DMAMap *result;
> > >>>>> const void *vaddr = memory_region_get_ram_ptr(section->mr) +
> > >>>>> section->offset_within_region +
> > >>>>> diff --git a/net/vhost-vdpa.c b/net/vhost-vdpa.c
> > >>>>> index 85a318faca..02780ee37b 100644
> > >>>>> --- a/net/vhost-vdpa.c
> > >>>>> +++ b/net/vhost-vdpa.c
> > >>>>> @@ -570,6 +570,7 @@ static NetClientState *net_vhost_vdpa_init(NetClientState *peer,
> > >>>>> s->vhost_vdpa.index = queue_pair_index;
> > >>>>> s->always_svq = svq;
> > >>>>> s->vhost_vdpa.shadow_vqs_enabled = svq;
> > >>>>> + s->vhost_vdpa.listener_shadow_vq = svq;
> > >>>> Any chance those above two can differ?
> > >>>>
> > >>> If CVQ is shadowed but data VQs are not, shadow_vqs_enabled is true
> > >>> but listener_shadow_vq is not.
> > >>>
> > >>> It is more clear in the next commit, where only shadow_vqs_enabled is
> > >>> set to true at vhost_vdpa_net_cvq_start.
> > >>
> > >> Ok, the name looks a little bit confusing. I wonder if it's better to
> > >> use shadow_cvq and shadow_data ?
> > >>
> > > I'm ok with renaming it, but struct vhost_vdpa is generic across all
> > > kind of devices, and it does not know if it is a datapath or not for
> > > the moment.
> > >
> > > Maybe listener_uses_iova_tree?
> >
> >
> > I think "iova_tree" is something that is internal to svq implementation,
> > it's better to define the name from the view of vhost_vdpa level.
> >
>
> I don't get this, vhost_vdpa struct already has a pointer to its iova_tree.
Yes, this is a suggestion to improve the readability of the code. So
what I meant is to have a name to demonstrate why we need to use
iova_tree instead of "uses_iova_tree".
Thanks
>
> Thanks!
>
