On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 03:57:30PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 02.05.23 15:50, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 03:47:43PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > > > Eventually we want to implement a mechanism where we can dynamically pin in response to RPCIT. > > > > > > Okay, so IIRC we'll fail starting the domain early, that's good. And if we > > > pin all guest memory (instead of small pieces dynamically), there is little > > > existing use for file-backed RAM in such zPCI configurations (because memory > > > cannot be reclaimed either way if it's all pinned), so likely there are no > > > real existing users. > > > > Right, this is VFIO, the physical HW can't tolerate not having pinned > > memory, so something somewhere is always pinning it. > > > > Which, again, makes it weird/wrong that this KVM code is pinning it > > again :\ > > IIUC, that pinning is not for ordinary IOMMU / KVM memory access. It's for > passthrough of (adapter) interrupts. > > I have to speculate, but I guess for hardware to forward interrupts to the > VM, it has to pin the special guest memory page that will receive the > indications, to then configure (interrupt) hardware to target the interrupt > indications to that special guest page (using a host physical address). Either the emulated access is "CPU" based happening through the KVM page table so it should use mmu_notifier locking. Or it is "DMA" and should go through an IOVA through iommufd pinning and locking. There is no other ground, nothing in KVM should be inventing its own access methodology. Jason
