Hi Jean, On Tue Oct 24, 2017 at 10:28:59PM +0530, Linu Cherian wrote: > Hi Jean, > Thanks for your reply. > > On Tue Oct 24, 2017 at 09:37:12AM +0100, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: > > Hi Linu, > > > > On 24/10/17 07:27, Linu Cherian wrote: > > > Hi Jean, > > > > > > On Mon Oct 23, 2017 at 10:32:41AM +0100, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: > > >> This is version 0.5 of the virtio-iommu specification, the paravirtualized > > >> IOMMU. This version addresses feedback from v0.4 and adds an event virtqueue. > > >> Please find the specification, LaTeX sources and pdf, at: > > >> git://linux-arm.org/virtio-iommu.git viommu/v0.5 > > >> http://linux-arm.org/git?p=virtio-iommu.git;a=blob;f=dist/v0.5/virtio-iommu-v0.5.pdf > > >> > > >> A detailed changelog since v0.4 follows. You can find the pdf diff at: > > >> http://linux-arm.org/git?p=virtio-iommu.git;a=blob;f=dist/diffs/virtio-iommu-pdf-diff-v0.4-v0.5.pdf > > >> > > >> * Add an event virtqueue for the device to report translation faults to > > >> the driver. For the moment only unrecoverable faults are available but > > >> future versions will extend it. > > >> * Simplify PROBE request by removing the ack part, and flattening RESV > > >> properties. > > >> * Rename "address space" to "domain". The change might seem futile but > > >> allows to introduce PASIDs and other features cleanly in the next > > >> versions. In the same vein, the few remaining "device" occurrences were > > >> replaced by "endpoint", to avoid any confusion with "the device" > > >> referring to the virtio device across the document. > > >> * Add implementation notes for RESV_MEM properties. > > >> * Update ACPI table definition. > > >> * Fix typos and clarify a few things. > > >> > > >> I will publish the Linux driver for v0.5 shortly. Then for next versions > > >> I'll focus on optimizations and adding support for hardware acceleration. > > >> > > >> Existing implementations are simple and can certainly be optimized, even > > >> without architectural changes. But the architecture itself can also be > > >> improved in a number of ways. Currently it is designed to work well with > > >> VFIO. However, having explicit MAP requests is less efficient* than page > > >> tables for emulated and PV endpoints, and the current architecture doesn't > > >> address this. Binding page tables is an obvious way to improve throughput > > >> in that case, but we can explore cleverer (and possibly simpler) ways to > > >> do it. > > >> > > >> So first we'll work on getting the base device and driver merged, then > > >> we'll analyze and compare several ideas for improving performance. > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> Jean > > >> > > >> * I have yet to study this behaviour, and would be interested in any > > >> prior art on the subject of analyzing devices DMA patterns (virtio and > > >> others) > > > > > > > > > From the spec, > > > Under future extensions. > > > > > > "Page Table Handover, to allow guests to manage their own page tables and share them with the MMU" > > > > > > Had few questions on this. > > > > > > 1. Did you mean SVM support for vfio-pci devices attached to guest processes here. > > > > Yes, using the VFIO BIND and INVALIDATE ioctls that Intel is working on, > > and adding requests in pretty much the same format to virtio-iommu. > > > > > 2. Can you give some hints on how this is going to work , since virtio-iommu guest kernel > > > driver need to create stage 1 page table as required by hardware which is not the case now. > > > CMIIW. > > > > The virtio-iommu device advertises which PASID/page table format is > > supported by the host (obtained via sysfs and communicated in the PROBE > > request), then the guest binds page tables or PASID tables to a domain and > > populates it. Binding page tables alone is easy because we already have > > the required drivers in the guest (io-pgtable or arch/* for SVM) and code > > in the host to manage PASID tables. But since the PASID table pointer is > > translated by stage-2, it would requires a little more work in the host > > for obtaining GPA buffers from the guest on demand. > Is this for resolving PCI PRI requests ?. > IIUC, PCI PRI requests for devices owned by guest need to be resolved > by guest itself. > > > In addition the BIND > > ioctl is different from the one used by VT-d, so this solution didn't get > > much appreciation. > > Could you please share the links on this ? > > > > > The alternative is to bind PASID tables. > > Sorry, i didnt get the difference here. > Also does this solution intend to cover the page table sharing of non SVM cases. For example, if we need to share the IOMMU page table for a device used in guest kernel, so that map/unmap gets directly handled by the guest and only TLB invalidates happens through a virtio-iommu channel. > It requires to factor the guest > > PASID handling code into a library, which is difficult for SMMU. Luckily > > I'm still working on adding PASID code for SMMUv3, so extracting it out of > > the driver isn't a big overhead. The good thing about this solution is > > that it reuses any specification work done for VFIO (and vice versa) and > > any host driver change made for vSMMU/VT-d emulations. > > > > Thanks, > > Jean > > -- > Linu cherian -- Linu cherian _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
