> From: Jean-Philippe Brucker [mailto:jean-philippe.brucker@xxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 2:41 AM > > On 18/04/17 10:51, Tian, Kevin wrote: > >> From: Jean-Philippe Brucker > >> Sent: Saturday, April 8, 2017 3:18 AM > >> > >> Unlike other virtio devices, the virtio-iommu doesn't work independently, > >> it is linked to other virtual or assigned devices. So before jumping into > >> device operations, we need to define a way for the guest to discover the > >> virtual IOMMU and the devices it translates. > >> > >> The host must describe the relation between IOMMU and devices to the > >> guest > >> using either device-tree or ACPI. The virtual IOMMU identifies each > > > > Do you plan to support both device tree and ACPI? > > Yes, with ACPI the topology would be described using IORT nodes. I didn't > include an example in my driver because DT is sufficient for a prototype > and is readily available (both in Linux and kvmtool), whereas IORT would > be quite easy to reuse in Linux, but isn't present in kvmtool at the > moment. However, both interfaces have to be supported for the virtio- > iommu > to be portable. 'portable' means whether guest enables ACPI? > > >> virtual device with a 32-bit ID, that we will call "Device ID" in this > >> document. Device IDs are not necessarily unique system-wide, but they > may > >> not overlap within a single virtual IOMMU. Device ID of passed-through > >> devices do not need to match IDs seen by the physical IOMMU. > >> > >> The virtual IOMMU uses virtio-mmio transport exclusively, not virtio-pci, > >> because with PCI the IOMMU interface would itself be an endpoint, and > >> existing firmware interfaces don't allow to describe IOMMU<->master > >> relations between PCI endpoints. > > > > I'm not familiar with virtio-mmio mechanism. Curious how devices in > > virtio-mmio are enumerated today? Could we use that mechanism to > > identify vIOMMUs and then invent a purely para-virtualized method to > > enumerate devices behind each vIOMMU? > > Using DT, virtio-mmio devices are described with "virtio-mmio" compatible > node, and with ACPI they use _HID LNRO0005. Since the host already > describes available devices to a guest using a firmware interface, I think > we should reuse the tools provided by that interface for describing > relations between DMA masters and IOMMU. OK, I didn't realize virtio-mmio is defined to rely on DT for enumeration. > > > Asking this is because each vendor has its own enumeration methods. > > ARM has device tree and ACPI IORT. AMR has ACPI IVRS and device > > tree (same format as ARM?). Intel has APCI DMAR and sub-tables. Your > > current proposal looks following ARM definitions which I'm not sure > > extensible enough to cover features defined only in other vendors' > > structures. > > ACPI IORT can be extended to incorporate para-virtualized IOMMUs, > regardless of the underlying architecture. It isn't defined solely for the > ARM SMMU, but serves a more general purpose of describing a map of > device > identifiers communicated from one components to another. Both DMAR and > IVRS have such description (respectively DRHD and IVHD), but they are > designed for a specific IOMMU, whereas IORT could host other kinds. I'll take a look at IORT definition. DRHD includes information more than device mapping. > > It seems that all we really need is an interface that says "there is a > virtio-iommu at address X, here are the devices it translates and their > corresponding IDs", and both DT and ACPI IORT are able to fulfill this role. > > > Since the purpose of this series is to go para-virtualize, why not also > > para-virtualize and simplify the enumeration method? For example, > > we may define a query interface through vIOMMU registers to allow > > guest query whether a device belonging to that vIOMMU. Then we > > can even remove use of any enumeration structure completely... > > Just a quick example which I may not think through all the pros and > > cons. :-) > > I don't think adding a brand new topology description mechanism is worth > the effort, we're better off reusing what already exists and is > implemented by operating systems. Adding a query interface inside the > vIOMMU may work (though might be very painful to integrate with fwspec in > Linux), but would be redundant since the host has to provide a firmware > description of the system anyway. > > >> The following diagram describes a situation where two virtual IOMMUs > >> translate traffic from devices in the system. vIOMMU 1 translates two PCI > >> domains, in which each function has a 16-bits requester ID. In order for > >> the vIOMMU to differentiate guest requests targeted at devices in each > >> domain, their Device ID ranges cannot overlap. vIOMMU 2 translates two > PCI > >> domains and a collection of platform devices. > >> > >> Device ID Requester ID > >> / 0x0 0x0 \ > >> / | | PCI domain 1 > >> / 0xffff 0xffff / > >> vIOMMU 1 > >> \ 0x10000 0x0 \ > >> \ | | PCI domain 2 > >> \ 0x1ffff 0xffff / > >> > >> / 0x0 \ > >> / | platform devices > >> / 0x1fff / > >> vIOMMU 2 > >> \ 0x2000 0x0 \ > >> \ | | PCI domain 3 > >> \ 0x11fff 0xffff / > >> > > > > isn't above be (0x30000, 3ffff) for PCI domain 3 giving device ID is 16bit? > > Unlike Requester IDs in PCI, there is no architected rule for IDs of > platform devices, it's an integration choice. The ID of platform device is > used exclusively for interfacing with an IOMMU (or MSI controller), it > doesn't mean anything outside this context. Here the host allocates 13 > bits to platform device IDs, which is legal. > Please add such explanation to your next version. In earlier text "16-bits request ID" is mentioned for vIOMMU1, which gave me the illusion that same 16bit applies to vIOMMU2 too. Thanks Kevin _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
