On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 02:49:31PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>
> On 2020/2/5 下午2:30, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 01:50:28PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > On 2020/2/5 下午1:31, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 11:12:21AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > On 2020/2/5 上午10:05, Tiwei Bie wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 02:46:16PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > > > On 2020/2/4 下午2:01, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 11:30:11AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > > > > > 5) generate diffs of memory table and using IOMMU API to setup the dma
> > > > > > > > > mapping in this method
> > > > > > > > Frankly I think that's a bunch of work. Why not a MAP/UNMAP interface?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sure, so that basically VHOST_IOTLB_UPDATE/INVALIDATE I think?
> > > > > > Do you mean we let userspace to only use VHOST_IOTLB_UPDATE/INVALIDATE
> > > > > > to do the DMA mapping in vhost-vdpa case? When vIOMMU isn't available,
> > > > > > userspace will set msg->iova to GPA, otherwise userspace will set
> > > > > > msg->iova to GIOVA, and vhost-vdpa module will get HPA from msg->uaddr?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Tiwei
> > > > > I think so. Michael, do you think this makes sense?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > to make sure, could you post the suggested argument format for
> > > > these ioctls?
> > > >
> > > It's the existed uapi:
> > >
> > > /* no alignment requirement */
> > > struct vhost_iotlb_msg {
> > > __u64 iova;
> > > __u64 size;
> > > __u64 uaddr;
> > > #define VHOST_ACCESS_RO 0x1
> > > #define VHOST_ACCESS_WO 0x2
> > > #define VHOST_ACCESS_RW 0x3
> > > __u8 perm;
> > > #define VHOST_IOTLB_MISS 1
> > > #define VHOST_IOTLB_UPDATE 2
> > > #define VHOST_IOTLB_INVALIDATE 3
> > > #define VHOST_IOTLB_ACCESS_FAIL 4
> > > __u8 type;
> > > };
> > >
> > > #define VHOST_IOTLB_MSG 0x1
> > > #define VHOST_IOTLB_MSG_V2 0x2
> > >
> > > struct vhost_msg {
> > > int type;
> > > union {
> > > struct vhost_iotlb_msg iotlb;
> > > __u8 padding[64];
> > > };
> > > };
> > >
> > > struct vhost_msg_v2 {
> > > __u32 type;
> > > __u32 reserved;
> > > union {
> > > struct vhost_iotlb_msg iotlb;
> > > __u8 padding[64];
> > > };
> > > };
> > Oh ok. So with a real device, I suspect we do not want to wait for each
> > change to be processed by device completely, so we might want an asynchronous variant
> > and then some kind of flush that tells device "you better apply these now".
>
>
> Let me explain:
>
> There are two types of devices:
>
> 1) device without on-chip IOMMU, DMA was done via IOMMU API which only
> support incremental map/unmap
Most IOMMUs have queues nowdays though. Whether APIs within kernel
expose that matters but we are better off on emulating
hardware not specific guest behaviour.
> 2) device with on-chip IOMMU, DMA could be done by device driver itself, and
> we could choose to pass the whole mappings to the driver at one time through
> vDPA bus operation (set_map)
>
> For vhost-vpda, there're two types of memory mapping:
>
> a) memory table, setup by userspace through VHOST_SET_MEM_TABLE, the whole
> mapping is updated in this way
> b) IOTLB API, incrementally done by userspace through vhost message
> (IOTLB_UPDATE/IOTLB_INVALIDATE)
>
> The current design is:
>
> - Reuse VHOST_SET_MEM_TABLE, and for type 1), we can choose to send diffs
> through IOMMU API or flush all the mappings then map new ones. For type 2),
> just send the whole mapping through set_map()
I know that at least for RDMA based things, you can't change
a mapping if it's active. So drivers will need to figure out the
differences which just looks ugly: userspace knows what
it was changing (really just adding/removing some guest memory).
> - Reuse vhost IOTLB, so for type 1), simply forward update/invalidate
> request via IOMMU API, for type 2), send IOTLB to vDPA device driver via
> set_map(), device driver may choose to send diffs or rebuild all mapping at
> their will
>
> Technically we can use vhost IOTLB API (map/umap) for building
> VHOST_SET_MEM_TABLE, but to avoid device to process the each request, it
> looks to me we need new UAPI which seems sub optimal.
>
> What's you thought?
>
> Thanks
I suspect we can't completely avoid a new UAPI.
>
> >
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
