On Sep 2, 2014 11:53 PM, "Rusty Russell" <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > There really are virtio devices that are pieces of silicon and not > > figments of a hypervisor's imagination [1]. > > Hi Andy, > > As you're discovering, there's a reason no one has done the DMA > API before. > > So the problem is that ppc64's IOMMU is a platform thing, not a bus > thing. They really do carve out an exception for virtio devices, > because performance (LOTS of performance). It remains to be seen if > other platforms have the same performance issues, but in absence of > other evidence, the answer is yes. > > It's a hack. But having specific virtual-only devices are an even > bigger hack. > > Physical virtio devices have been talked about, but don't actually exist > in Real Life. And someone a virtio PCI card is going to have serious > performance issues: mainly because they'll want the rings in the card's > MMIO region, not allocated by the driver. Being broken on PPC is really > the least of their problems. > > So, what do we do? It'd be nice if Linux virtio Just Worked under Xen, > though Xen's IOMMU is outside the virtio spec. Since virtio_pci can be > a module, obvious hacks like having xen_arch_setup initialize a dma_ops pointer > exposed by virtio_pci.c is out. Xen does expose dma_ops. The trick is knowing when to use it. > > I think the best approach is to have a new feature bit (25 is free), > VIRTIO_F_USE_BUS_MAPPING which indicates that a device really wants to > use the mapping for the bus it is on. A real device would set this, > or it won't work behind an IOMMU. A Xen device would also set this. The devices I care about aren't actually Xen devices. They're devices supplied by QEMU/KVM, booting a Xen hypervisor, which in turn passes the virtio device (along with every other PCI device) through to dom0. So this is exactly the same virtio device that regular x86 KVM guests would see. The reason that current code fails is that Xen guest physical addresses aren't the same as the addresses seen by the outer hypervisor. These devices don't know that physical addresses != bus addresses, so they can't advertise that fact. If we ever end up with a virtio_pci device with physical addressing, behind an IOMMU (but ignoring it), on Xen, we'll have a problem, since neither "physical" addressing nor dma ops will work. That being said, there are also proposals for virtio devices supplied by Xen dom0 to domU, and these will presumably work the same way, except that the device implementation will know that it's on Xen. Grr. This is mostly a result of the fact that virtio_pci devices aren't really PCI devices. I still think that virtio_pci shouldn't have to worry about this; ideally this would all be handled higher up in the device hierarchy. x86 already gets this right. Are there any hypervisors except PPC that use virtio_pci, have IOMMUs on the pci slot that virtio_pci lives in, and that use physical addressing? If not, I think that just quirking PPC will work (at least until someone wants IOMMU support in virtio_pci on PPC, in which case doing something using devicetree seems like a reasonable solution). --Andy > > Thoughts? > Rusty. > > PS. I cc'd OASIS virtio-dev: it's subscriber only for IP reasons (to > subscribe you have to promise we can use your suggestion in the > standard). Feel free to remove in any replies, but it's part of > the world we live in... _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
