On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 12:20:46PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 10:54:35AM -0400, Matthew Rosato wrote: > > On 5/2/23 10:15 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > > On 02.05.23 16:04, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > >> 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. > > > > > > I might be wrong, but this seems to be a bit different. > > > > > > It cannot tolerate page faults (needs a host physical address), so > > > memory notifiers don't really apply. (as a side note, KVM on s390x > > > does not use mmu notifiers as we know them) > > > > The host physical address is one shared between underlying firmware > > and the host kvm. Either might make changes to the referenced page > > and then issue an alert to the guest via a mechanism called GISA, > > giving impetus to the guest to look at that page and process the > > event. As you say, firmware can't tolerate the page being > > unavailable; it's expecting that once we feed it that location it's > > always available until we remove it (kvm_s390_pci_aif_disable). > > That is a CPU access delegated to the FW without any locking scheme to > make it safe with KVM :\ > > It would have been better if FW could inject it through the kvm page > tables so it has some coherency. > > Otherwise you have to call this "DMA", I think. > > How does s390 avoid mmu notifiers without having lots of problems?? It > is not really optional to hook the invalidations if you need to build > a shadow page table.. Totally no idea on s390 details, but.. per my read above, if the firmware needs to make sure the page is always available (so no way to fault it in on demand), which means a longterm pinning seems appropriate here. Then if pinned a must, there's no need for mmu notifiers (as the page will simply not be invalidated anyway)? Thanks, -- Peter Xu
