On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 07:39:24PM +0100, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: > On 07/04/17 22:19, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 08:17:44PM +0100, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: > >> There are a number of advantages in a paravirtualized IOMMU over a full > >> emulation. It is portable and could be reused on different architectures. > >> It is easier to implement than a full emulation, with less state tracking. > >> It might be more efficient in some cases, with less context switches to > >> the host and the possibility of in-kernel emulation. > > > > Thanks, this is very interesting. I am read to read it all, but I really > > would like you to expand some more on the motivation for this work. > > Productising this would be quite a bit of work. Spending just 6 lines on > > motivation seems somewhat disproportionate. In particular, do you have > > any specific efficiency measurements or estimates that you can share? > > The main motivation for this work is to bring IOMMU virtualization to the > ARM world. We don't have any at the moment, and a full ARM SMMU > virtualization solution would be counter-productive. We would have to do > it for SMMUv2, for the completely orthogonal SMMUv3, and for any future > version of the architecture. Doing so in userspace might be acceptable, > but then for performance reasons people will want in-kernel emulation of > every IOMMU variant out there, which is a maintenance and security > nightmare. A single generic vIOMMU is preferable because it reduces > maintenance cost and attack surface. > > The transport code is the same as any virtio device, both for userspace > and in-kernel implementations. So instead of rewriting everything from > scratch (and the lot of bugs that go with it) for each IOMMU variation, we > reuse well-tested code for transport and write the emulation layer once > and for all. > > Note that this work applies to any architecture with an IOMMU, not only > ARM and their partners'. Introducing an IOMMU specially designed for > virtualization allows us to get rid of complex state tracking inherent to > full IOMMU emulations. With a full emulation, all guest accesses to page > table and configuration structures have to be trapped and interpreted. A > Virtio interface provides well-defined semantics and doesn't need to guess > what the guest is trying to do. It transmits requests made from guest > device drivers to host IOMMU almost unaltered, removing the intermediate > layer of arch-specific configuration structures and page tables. > > Using a portable standard like Virtio also allows for efficient IOMMU > virtualization when guest and host are built for different architectures > (for instance when using Qemu TCG.) In-kernel emulation would still work > with vhost-iommu, but a platform-specific vIOMMUs would have to stay in > userspace. > > I don't have any measurements at the moment, it is a bit early for that. > The kvmtool example was developed on a software model and is mostly here > for illustrative purpose, a Qemu implementation would be more suitable for > performance analysis. I wouldn't be able to give meaning to these numbers > anyway, since on ARM we don't have any existing solution to compare it > against. One could compare the complexity of handling guest accesses and > parsing page tables in Qemu's VT-d emulation with reading a chain of > buffers in Virtio, for a very rough estimate. > > Thanks, > Jean-Philippe This last suggestion sounds very reasonable. -- MST _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
