On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 10:41:41AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > On 2018年08月03日 04:55, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 09:29:37AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: > > > This patch series is the follow up on the discussions we had before about > > > the RFC titled [RFC,V2] virtio: Add platform specific DMA API translation > > > for virito devices (https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10417371/). There > > > were suggestions about doing away with two different paths of transactions > > > with the host/QEMU, first being the direct GPA and the other being the DMA > > > API based translations. > > > > > > First patch attempts to create a direct GPA mapping based DMA operations > > > structure called 'virtio_direct_dma_ops' with exact same implementation > > > of the direct GPA path which virtio core currently has but just wrapped in > > > a DMA API format. Virtio core must use 'virtio_direct_dma_ops' instead of > > > the arch default in absence of VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM flag to preserve the > > > existing semantics. The second patch does exactly that inside the function > > > virtio_finalize_features(). The third patch removes the default direct GPA > > > path from virtio core forcing it to use DMA API callbacks for all devices. > > > Now with that change, every device must have a DMA operations structure > > > associated with it. The fourth patch adds an additional hook which gives > > > the platform an opportunity to do yet another override if required. This > > > platform hook can be used on POWER Ultravisor based protected guests to > > > load up SWIOTLB DMA callbacks to do the required (as discussed previously > > > in the above mentioned thread how host is allowed to access only parts of > > > the guest GPA range) bounce buffering into the shared memory for all I/O > > > scatter gather buffers to be consumed on the host side. > > > > > > Please go through these patches and review whether this approach broadly > > > makes sense. I will appreciate suggestions, inputs, comments regarding > > > the patches or the approach in general. Thank you. > > Jason did some work on profiling this. Unfortunately he reports > > about 4% extra overhead from this switch on x86 with no vIOMMU. > > The test is rather simple, just run pktgen (pktgen_sample01_simple.sh) in > guest and measure PPS on tap on host. > > Thanks Could you supply host configuration involved please? > > > > I expect he's writing up the data in more detail, but > > just wanted to let you know this would be one more > > thing to debug before we can just switch to DMA APIs. > > > > > > > Anshuman Khandual (4): > > > virtio: Define virtio_direct_dma_ops structure > > > virtio: Override device's DMA OPS with virtio_direct_dma_ops selectively > > > virtio: Force virtio core to use DMA API callbacks for all virtio devices > > > virtio: Add platform specific DMA API translation for virito devices > > > > > > arch/powerpc/include/asm/dma-mapping.h | 6 +++ > > > arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/iommu.c | 6 +++ > > > drivers/virtio/virtio.c | 72 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.h | 3 ++ > > > drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c | 65 +----------------------------- > > > 5 files changed, 89 insertions(+), 63 deletions(-) > > > > > > -- > > > 2.9.3 _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
