On Thursday 30 December 2010 15:47:48 Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 03:32:42PM +0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
> > On Wednesday 29 December 2010 17:28:24 Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 04:55:19PM +0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday 29 December 2010 16:31:35 Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 03:18:13PM +0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday 28 December 2010 20:26:13 Avi Kivity wrote:
> > > > > > > On 12/22/2010 10:44 AM, Sheng Yang wrote:
> > > > > > > > Then we can support mask bit operation of assigned devices
> > > > > > > > now.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > @@ -3817,14 +3819,16 @@ static int
> > > > > > > > emulator_write_emulated_onepage(unsigned long addr,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > mmio:
> > > > > > > > trace_kvm_mmio(KVM_TRACE_MMIO_WRITE, bytes, gpa, *(u64
> > > > > > > > *)val);
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > + r = vcpu_mmio_write(vcpu, gpa, bytes, val);
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > /*
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > * Is this MMIO handled locally?
> > > > > > > > */
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > - if (!vcpu_mmio_write(vcpu, gpa, bytes, val))
> > > > > > > > + if (!r)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > return X86EMUL_CONTINUE;
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > vcpu->mmio_needed = 1;
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > - vcpu->run->exit_reason = KVM_EXIT_MMIO;
> > > > > > > > + vcpu->run->exit_reason = (r == -ENOTSYNC) ?
> > > > > > > > + KVM_EXIT_MSIX_ROUTING_UPDATE : KVM_EXIT_MMIO;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This isn't very pretty, exit_reason should be written in
> > > > > > > vcpu_mmio_write(). I guess we can refactor it later.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sure.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > +#define KVM_MSIX_MMIO_TYPE_ASSIGNED_DEV (1<< 0)
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > +#define KVM_MSIX_MMIO_TYPE_BASE_TABLE (1<< 8)
> > > > > > > > +#define KVM_MSIX_MMIO_TYPE_BASE_PBA (1<< 9)
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > +#define KVM_MSIX_MMIO_TYPE_DEV_MASK 0x00ff
> > > > > > > > +#define KVM_MSIX_MMIO_TYPE_BASE_MASK 0xff00
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Any explanation of these?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I chose to use assigned device id instead of one specific table
> > > > > > id, because every device should got at most one MSI MMIO(the
> > > > > > same should applied to vfio device as well), and if we use
> > > > > > specific table ID, we need way to associate with the device
> > > > > > anyway, to perform mask/unmask or other operation. So I think
> > > > > > it's better to use device ID here directly.
> > > > >
> > > > > Table id will be needed to make things work for emulated devices.
> > > >
> > > > I suppose even emulated device should got some kind of id(BDF)?
> > >
> > > Not that I know. Look at how irqfd is defined for example,
> > > or how interrupts are sent through a gsi.
> > > I would like to make the interface be able to support that.
> > >
> > > > I think that is
> > > > enough for identification, which is already there, so we don't need
> > > > to allocate another ID for the device - because one device would got
> > > > at most one MSI-X MMIO, then use BDF or other device specific ID
> > > > should be quite straightforward.
> > >
> > > So you propose allocating ids for emulated devices?
> > > OK. How will we map e.g. irqfds to these?
> >
> > I don't understand. I've checked virtio-pci.c which is using irqfd, and
> > it's still a PCI device, and still have BDF, right?
> >
> > Also, what we want is a way to identify the MSI-X MMIO. For assigned
> > device, we use BDF, then we can easily identify the MMIO as well as the
> > device. For others, even they don't have BDF(I don't think so, because
> > MSI-X is a part of PCI, and every PCI device has BDF), what you need is
> > an ID, no matter what it is and how it defined. QEmu can get the
> > allocation done, and the type field in this API can still tell which
> > kind of ID/devices they are, then determine how to deal with them.
>
> Yes, the PCI device can be identified with e.g. BFD
> (won't work for multi-domain but then we can write an allocator maybe).
> But how will we inject these interrupts?
> We can do this now with GSI ioctl or map GSI to irqfd
> and inject with irqfd write.
I suppose it's not in the scope of this patch... But I think you can still do
this, everything is the same as before. QEmu can read from table to get
data/address pair, then program the routing table, etc.
--
regards
Yang, Sheng
> > > > > My idea was this: we have the device id in kvm_assigned_msix_entry
> > > > > already. Just put table id and entry number in
> > > > > kvm_irq_routing_entry (create a new gsi type for this).
> > > > > The result will also work for irqfd because these are mapped to
> > > > > gsi.
> > > > >
> > > > > > And for the table and pba address, it's due to the mapping in
> > > > > > userspace may know the guest MSI-X table address and PBA address
> > > > > > at different time(due to different BAR, refer to the code in
> > > > > > assigned_dev_iomem_map() of qemu). So I purposed this API to
> > > > > > allow each of them can be passed to kernel space individually.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > +struct kvm_msix_mmio_user {
> > > > > > > > + __u32 dev_id;
> > > > > > > > + __u16 type;
> > > > > > > > + __u16 max_entries_nr;
> > > > > > > > + __u64 base_addr;
> > > > > > > > + __u64 base_va;
> > > > > > > > + __u64 flags;
> > > > > > > > + __u64 reserved[4];
> > > > > > > > +};
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > +int kvm_assigned_device_update_msix_mask_bit(struct kvm
> > > > > > > > *kvm, + int assigned_dev_id, int entry, u32 flag)
> > > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Need a better name for 'flag' (and make it a bool).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > + int r = -EFAULT;
> > > > > > > > + struct kvm_assigned_dev_kernel *adev;
> > > > > > > > + int i;
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > + if (!irqchip_in_kernel(kvm))
> > > > > > > > + return r;
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > + mutex_lock(&kvm->lock);
> > > > > > > > + adev = kvm_find_assigned_dev(&kvm->arch.assigned_dev_head,
> > > > > > > > + assigned_dev_id);
> > > > > > > > + if (!adev)
> > > > > > > > + goto out;
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > + for (i = 0; i< adev->entries_nr; i++)
> > > > > > > > + if (adev->host_msix_entries[i].entry == entry) {
> > > > > > > > + if (flag)
> > > > > > > > + disable_irq_nosync(
> > > > > > > > + adev->host_msix_entries[i].vector);
> > > > > > > > + else
> > > > > > > > + enable_irq(adev->host_msix_entries[i].vector);
> > > > > > > > + r = 0;
> > > > > > > > + break;
> > > > > > > > + }
> > > > > > > > +out:
> > > > > > > > + mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
> > > > > > > > + return r;
> > > > > > > > +}
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > @@ -1988,6 +2008,12 @@ static int
> > > > > > > > kvm_dev_ioctl_create_vm(void)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > return r;
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > #endif
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > + r = kvm_register_msix_mmio_dev(kvm);
> > > > > > > > + if (r< 0) {
> > > > > > > > + kvm_put_kvm(kvm);
> > > > > > > > + return r;
> > > > > > > > + }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Shouldn't this be part of individual KVM_REGISTER_MSIX_MMIO
> > > > > > > calls?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In fact this MMIO device is more like global one for the VM, not
> > > > > > for every devices. It should handle all MMIO from all MSI-X
> > > > > > enabled devices, so I put it in the VM init/destroy process.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > +static int msix_table_mmio_read(struct kvm_io_device *this,
> > > > > > > > gpa_t addr, int len, + void *val)
> > > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > > + struct kvm_msix_mmio_dev *mmio_dev =
> > > > > > > > + container_of(this, struct kvm_msix_mmio_dev, table_dev);
> > > > > > > > + struct kvm_msix_mmio *mmio;
> > > > > > > > + int idx, ret = 0, entry, offset, r;
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > + mutex_lock(&mmio_dev->lock);
> > > > > > > > + idx = get_mmio_table_index(mmio_dev, addr, len);
> > > > > > > > + if (idx< 0) {
> > > > > > > > + ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > > > > > > > + goto out;
> > > > > > > > + }
> > > > > > > > + if ((addr& 0x3) || (len != 4&& len != 8))
> > > > > > > > + goto out;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What about (addr & 4) && (len == 8)? Is it supported? It may
> > > > > > > cross entry boundaries.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Should not supported. But I haven't found words on the PCI spec
> > > > > > for it. So I didn't add this check.
> > > > >
> > > > > IMPLEMENTATION NOTE
> > > > > MSI-X Memory Space Structures in Read/Write Memory
> > > > >
> > > > > ....
> > > > >
> > > > > For all accesses to MSI-X Table and MSI-X PBA fields, software must
> > > > > use aligned full
> > > > > DWORD or aligned full QWORD transactions; otherwise, the result is
> > > > > undefined.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, this one is enough, I would add the checking.
> > > >
> > > > > > > > + mmio =&mmio_dev->mmio[idx];
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > + entry = (addr - mmio->table_base_addr) /
> > > > > > > > PCI_MSIX_ENTRY_SIZE; + offset = addr& 0xf;
> > > > > > > > + r = copy_from_user(val, (void *)(mmio->table_base_va +
> > > > > > > > + entry * PCI_MSIX_ENTRY_SIZE + offset), len);
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > + if (r)
> > > > > > > > + goto out;
> > > > > > > > +out:
> > > > > > > > + mutex_unlock(&mmio_dev->lock);
> > > > > > > > + return ret;
> > > > > > > > +}
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > +static int msix_table_mmio_write(struct kvm_io_device *this,
> > > > > > > > gpa_t addr, + int len, const void *val)
> > > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > > + struct kvm_msix_mmio_dev *mmio_dev =
> > > > > > > > + container_of(this, struct kvm_msix_mmio_dev, table_dev);
> > > > > > > > + struct kvm_msix_mmio *mmio;
> > > > > > > > + int idx, entry, offset, ret = 0, r = 0;
> > > > > > > > + gpa_t entry_base;
> > > > > > > > + u32 old_ctrl, new_ctrl;
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > + mutex_lock(&mmio_dev->lock);
> > > > > > > > + idx = get_mmio_table_index(mmio_dev, addr, len);
> > > > > > > > + if (idx< 0) {
> > > > > > > > + ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > > > > > > > + goto out;
> > > > > > > > + }
> > > > > > > > + if ((addr& 0x3) || (len != 4&& len != 8))
> > > > > > > > + goto out;
> > > > > > > > + mmio =&mmio_dev->mmio[idx];
> > > > > > > > + entry = (addr - mmio->table_base_addr) /
> > > > > > > > PCI_MSIX_ENTRY_SIZE; + entry_base = mmio->table_base_va +
> > > > > > > > entry * PCI_MSIX_ENTRY_SIZE; + offset = addr& 0xF;
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > + if (copy_from_user(&old_ctrl,
> > > > > > > > + entry_base + PCI_MSIX_ENTRY_VECTOR_CTRL,
> > > > > > > > + sizeof old_ctrl))
> > > > > > > > + goto out;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > get_user() is easier.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > + /* No allow writing to other fields when entry is unmasked
> > > > > > > > */ + if (!(old_ctrl& PCI_MSIX_ENTRY_CTRL_MASKBIT)&&
> > > > > > > > + offset != PCI_MSIX_ENTRY_VECTOR_CTRL)
> > > > > > > > + goto out;
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > + if (copy_to_user(entry_base + offset, val, len))
> > > > > > > > + goto out;
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > + if (copy_from_user(&new_ctrl,
> > > > > > > > + entry_base + PCI_MSIX_ENTRY_VECTOR_CTRL,
> > > > > > > > + sizeof new_ctrl))
> > > > > > > > + goto out;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > put_user()
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > + if ((offset< PCI_MSIX_ENTRY_VECTOR_CTRL&& len == 4) ||
> > > > > > > > + (offset< PCI_MSIX_ENTRY_DATA&& len == 8))
> > > > > > > > + ret = -ENOTSYNC;
> > > > > > > > + if (old_ctrl == new_ctrl)
> > > > > > > > + goto out;
> > > > > > > > + if (!(old_ctrl& PCI_MSIX_ENTRY_CTRL_MASKBIT)&&
> > > > > > > > + (new_ctrl& PCI_MSIX_ENTRY_CTRL_MASKBIT))
> > > > > > > > + r = update_msix_mask_bit(mmio_dev->kvm, mmio, entry, 1);
> > > > > > > > + else if ((old_ctrl& PCI_MSIX_ENTRY_CTRL_MASKBIT)&&
> > > > > > > > + !(new_ctrl& PCI_MSIX_ENTRY_CTRL_MASKBIT))
> > > > > > > > + r = update_msix_mask_bit(mmio_dev->kvm, mmio, entry, 0);
> > > > > > > > + if (r || ret)
> > > > > > > > + ret = -ENOTSYNC;
> > > > > > > > +out:
> > > > > > > > + mutex_unlock(&mmio_dev->lock);
> > > > > > > > + return ret;
> > > > > > > > +}
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > blank line...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > +static const struct kvm_io_device_ops msix_mmio_table_ops =
> > > > > > > > { + .read = msix_table_mmio_read,
> > > > > > > > + .write = msix_table_mmio_write,
> > > > > > > > +};
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > ++
> > > > > > > > +int kvm_vm_ioctl_register_msix_mmio(struct kvm *kvm,
> > > > > > > > + struct kvm_msix_mmio_user *mmio_user)
> > > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > > + struct kvm_msix_mmio_dev *mmio_dev =&kvm->msix_mmio_dev;
> > > > > > > > + struct kvm_msix_mmio *mmio = NULL;
> > > > > > > > + int r = 0, i;
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > + mutex_lock(&mmio_dev->lock);
> > > > > > > > + for (i = 0; i< mmio_dev->mmio_nr; i++) {
> > > > > > > > + if (mmio_dev->mmio[i].dev_id == mmio_user->dev_id&&
> > > > > > > > + (mmio_dev->mmio[i].type&
KVM_MSIX_MMIO_TYPE_DEV_MASK)
> >
> > ==
> >
> > > > > > > > + (mmio_user->type& KVM_MSIX_MMIO_TYPE_DEV_MASK)) {
> > > > > > > > + mmio =&mmio_dev->mmio[i];
> > > > > > > > + if (mmio->max_entries_nr != mmio_user-
>max_entries_nr)
> >
> > {
> >
> > > > > > > > + r = -EINVAL;
> > > > > > > > + goto out;
> > > > > > > > + }
> > > > > > > > + break;
> > > > > > > > + }
> > > > > > > > + }
> > > > > > > > + if (!mmio) {
> > > > > > > > + if (mmio_dev->mmio_nr == KVM_MSIX_MMIO_MAX) {
> > > > > > > > + r = -ENOSPC;
> > > > > > > > + goto out;
> > > > > > > > + }
> > > > > > > > + mmio =&mmio_dev->mmio[mmio_dev->mmio_nr];
> > > > > > > > + mmio_dev->mmio_nr++;
> > > > > > > > + }
> > > > > > > > + mmio->max_entries_nr = mmio_user->max_entries_nr;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sanity check to avoid overflow.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > + mmio->dev_id = mmio_user->dev_id;
> > > > > > > > + mmio->flags = mmio_user->flags;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Check for unsupported bits (all of them at present?)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > + if ((mmio_user->type& KVM_MSIX_MMIO_TYPE_DEV_MASK) ==
> > > > > > > > + KVM_MSIX_MMIO_TYPE_ASSIGNED_DEV)
> > > > > > > > + mmio->type = KVM_MSIX_MMIO_TYPE_ASSIGNED_DEV;
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > + if ((mmio_user->type& KVM_MSIX_MMIO_TYPE_BASE_MASK) ==
> > > > > > > > + KVM_MSIX_MMIO_TYPE_BASE_TABLE) {
> > > > > > > > + mmio->type |= KVM_MSIX_MMIO_TYPE_BASE_TABLE;
> > > > > > > > + mmio->table_base_addr = mmio_user->base_addr;
> > > > > > > > + mmio->table_base_va = mmio_user->base_va;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Check for va in kernel space.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > + } else if ((mmio_user->type& KVM_MSIX_MMIO_TYPE_BASE_MASK)
> > > > > > > > == + KVM_MSIX_MMIO_TYPE_BASE_PBA) {
> > > > > > > > + mmio->type |= KVM_MSIX_MMIO_TYPE_BASE_PBA;
> > > > > > > > + mmio->pba_base_addr = mmio_user->base_addr;
> > > > > > > > + mmio->pba_base_va = mmio_user->base_va;
> > > > > > > > + }
> > > > > > > > +out:
> > > > > > > > + mutex_unlock(&mmio_dev->lock);
> > > > > > > > + return r;
> > > > > > > > +}
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In all, looks reasonable. I'd like to see documentation for
> > > > > > > it, and review from the pci people. Alex, mst?
> > > > >
> > > > > Some general comments:
> > > > > PBA isn't supported in this version, which is OK, but let's not add
> > > > > a capability until it is, and let's not try to guess what
> > > > > the interface will look like. I think keeping PBA in userspace will
> > > > > be hard because it needs to be modified from interrupt context.
> > > > > Removing the PBA stub will make the interface simpler.
> > > >
> > > > The API only get the PBA address now which should be fine. And we
> > > > still have threaded irq and tasklet for accessing the userspace for
> > > > interrupt handler...
> > >
> > > I don't think it's going to work: we are not
> > > in the context of the right process. Further
> > > I think we should keep the option of
> > > reading the PBA status from the device or host kernel open.
> > > And generally having an interface
> > > for functionality we don't implement is not a good idea:
> > > you don't know whether you really can support the interface you
> > > promised.
> >
> > Well, I don't know if we want to read PBA from device directly. To me
> > it's not a good idea because the real device has nothing to do with the
> > one we show to the guest. At least direct accessing the mask bits of
> > real device would be very dangerous. Avi?
> >
> > --
> > regards
> > Yang, Sheng
>
> I am not really suggesting this. What I say is PBA is unimplemented
> let us not commit to an interface yet.
>
> > > > --
> > > > regards
> > > > Yang, Sheng
> > > >
> > > > > > Would add the API document soon.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > regards
> > > > > > Yang, Sheng
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
