On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 7:40 PM Dragos Tatulea <dtatulea@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2023-08-03 at 16:03 +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 1:13 AM Dragos Tatulea <dtatulea@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > The mr->initialized flag is shared between the control vq and data vq
> > > part of the mr init/uninit. But if the control vq and data vq get placed
> > > in different ASIDs, it can happen that initializing the control vq will
> > > prevent the data vq mr from being initialized.
> > >
> > > This patch consolidates the control and data vq init parts into their
> > > own init functions. The mr->initialized will now be used for the data vq
> > > only. The control vq currently doesn't need a flag.
> > >
> > > The uninitializing part is also taken care of: mlx5_vdpa_destroy_mr got
> > > split into data and control vq functions which are now also ASID aware.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 8fcd20c30704 ("vdpa/mlx5: Support different address spaces for
> > > control and data")
> > > Signed-off-by: Dragos Tatulea <dtatulea@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Reviewed-by: Eugenio Pérez <eperezma@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Reviewed-by: Gal Pressman <gal@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/vdpa/mlx5/core/mlx5_vdpa.h | 1 +
> > > drivers/vdpa/mlx5/core/mr.c | 97 +++++++++++++++++++++---------
> > > 2 files changed, 71 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/vdpa/mlx5/core/mlx5_vdpa.h
> > > b/drivers/vdpa/mlx5/core/mlx5_vdpa.h
> > > index 25fc4120b618..a0420be5059f 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/vdpa/mlx5/core/mlx5_vdpa.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/vdpa/mlx5/core/mlx5_vdpa.h
> > > @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ struct mlx5_vdpa_mr {
> > > struct list_head head;
> > > unsigned long num_directs;
> > > unsigned long num_klms;
> > > + /* state of dvq mr */
> > > bool initialized;
> > >
> > > /* serialize mkey creation and destruction */
> > > diff --git a/drivers/vdpa/mlx5/core/mr.c b/drivers/vdpa/mlx5/core/mr.c
> > > index 03e543229791..4ae14a248a4b 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/vdpa/mlx5/core/mr.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/vdpa/mlx5/core/mr.c
> > > @@ -489,60 +489,103 @@ static void destroy_user_mr(struct mlx5_vdpa_dev
> > > *mvdev, struct mlx5_vdpa_mr *mr
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > -void mlx5_vdpa_destroy_mr(struct mlx5_vdpa_dev *mvdev)
> > > +static void _mlx5_vdpa_destroy_cvq_mr(struct mlx5_vdpa_dev *mvdev, unsigned
> > > int asid)
> > > +{
> > > + if (mvdev->group2asid[MLX5_VDPA_CVQ_GROUP] != asid)
> > > + return;
> > > +
> > > + prune_iotlb(mvdev);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static void _mlx5_vdpa_destroy_dvq_mr(struct mlx5_vdpa_dev *mvdev, unsigned
> > > int asid)
> > > {
> > > struct mlx5_vdpa_mr *mr = &mvdev->mr;
> > >
> > > - mutex_lock(&mr->mkey_mtx);
> > > + if (mvdev->group2asid[MLX5_VDPA_DATAVQ_GROUP] != asid)
> > > + return;
> > > +
> > > if (!mr->initialized)
> > > - goto out;
> > > + return;
> > >
> > > - prune_iotlb(mvdev);
> > > if (mr->user_mr)
> > > destroy_user_mr(mvdev, mr);
> > > else
> > > destroy_dma_mr(mvdev, mr);
> > >
> > > mr->initialized = false;
> > > -out:
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static void mlx5_vdpa_destroy_mr_asid(struct mlx5_vdpa_dev *mvdev, unsigned
> > > int asid)
> > > +{
> > > + struct mlx5_vdpa_mr *mr = &mvdev->mr;
> > > +
> > > + mutex_lock(&mr->mkey_mtx);
> > > +
> > > + _mlx5_vdpa_destroy_dvq_mr(mvdev, asid);
> > > + _mlx5_vdpa_destroy_cvq_mr(mvdev, asid);
> > > +
> > > mutex_unlock(&mr->mkey_mtx);
> > > }
> > >
> > > -static int _mlx5_vdpa_create_mr(struct mlx5_vdpa_dev *mvdev,
> > > - struct vhost_iotlb *iotlb, unsigned int
> > > asid)
> > > +void mlx5_vdpa_destroy_mr(struct mlx5_vdpa_dev *mvdev)
> > > +{
> > > + mlx5_vdpa_destroy_mr_asid(mvdev, mvdev-
> > > >group2asid[MLX5_VDPA_CVQ_GROUP]);
> > > + mlx5_vdpa_destroy_mr_asid(mvdev, mvdev-
> > > >group2asid[MLX5_VDPA_DATAVQ_GROUP]);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static int _mlx5_vdpa_create_cvq_mr(struct mlx5_vdpa_dev *mvdev,
> > > + struct vhost_iotlb *iotlb,
> > > + unsigned int asid)
> > > +{
> > > + if (mvdev->group2asid[MLX5_VDPA_CVQ_GROUP] != asid)
> > > + return 0;
> > > +
> > > + return dup_iotlb(mvdev, iotlb);
> >
> > This worries me as conceptually, there should be no difference between
> > dvq mr and cvq mr. The virtqueue should be loosely coupled with mr.
> >
> Are you worried by the changes in this patch or about the possibility of having
>
> The reason for this change is that I noticed if you create one mr in one asid
> you could be blocked out from creating another one in a different asid due to
> mr->initialized being true. To me that seemed problematic. Is it not?
My feeling is that mr.c should be device agnostic. It needs to know
nothing about the device details to work. But this patch seems to
break the layer.
>
> > One example is that, if we only do dup_iotlb() but not try to create
> > dma mr here, we will break virtio-vdpa:
> >
> How will that be possible? _mlx5_vdpa_create_mr calls _mlx5_vdpa_create_dvq_mr
> and _mlx5_vdpa_create_cvq_mr. The only thing that is different in this patch is
> that the cvq is not protected by an init flag. My understanding was that it
> would be ok to dup_iotlb again. Is it not? If not I could add an additional
> initialized flag for the cvq mr.
You are right here.
Thanks
>
> Thanks,
> Dragos
>
> > commit 6f5312f801836e6af9bcbb0bdb44dc423e129206
> > Author: Eli Cohen <elic@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Wed Jun 2 11:58:54 2021 +0300
> >
> > vdpa/mlx5: Add support for running with virtio_vdpa
> >
> > In order to support running vdpa using vritio_vdpa driver, we need to
> > create a different kind of MR, one that has 1:1 mapping, since the
> > addresses referring to virtqueues are dma addresses.
> >
> > We create the 1:1 MR in mlx5_vdpa_dev_add() only in case firmware
> > supports the general capability umem_uid_0. The reason for that is that
> > 1:1 MRs must be created with uid == 0 while virtqueue objects can be
> > created with uid == 0 only when the firmware capability is on.
> >
> > If the set_map() callback is called with new translations provided
> > through iotlb, the driver will destroy the 1:1 MR and create a regular
> > one.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Eli Cohen <elic@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210602085854.62690-1-elic@xxxxxxxxxx
> > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Acked-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >
>
> > Thanks
> >
> >
>
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static int _mlx5_vdpa_create_dvq_mr(struct mlx5_vdpa_dev *mvdev,
> > > + struct vhost_iotlb *iotlb,
> > > + unsigned int asid)
> > > {
> > > struct mlx5_vdpa_mr *mr = &mvdev->mr;
> > > int err;
> > >
> > > - if (mr->initialized)
> > > + if (mvdev->group2asid[MLX5_VDPA_DATAVQ_GROUP] != asid)
> > > return 0;
> > >
> > > - if (mvdev->group2asid[MLX5_VDPA_DATAVQ_GROUP] == asid) {
> > > - if (iotlb)
> > > - err = create_user_mr(mvdev, iotlb);
> > > - else
> > > - err = create_dma_mr(mvdev, mr);
> > > + if (mr->initialized)
> > > + return 0;
> > >
> > > - if (err)
> > > - return err;
> > > - }
> > > + if (iotlb)
> > > + err = create_user_mr(mvdev, iotlb);
> > > + else
> > > + err = create_dma_mr(mvdev, mr);
> > >
> > > - if (mvdev->group2asid[MLX5_VDPA_CVQ_GROUP] == asid) {
> > > - err = dup_iotlb(mvdev, iotlb);
> > > - if (err)
> > > - goto out_err;
> > > - }
> > > + if (err)
> > > + return err;
> > >
> > > mr->initialized = true;
> > > +
> > > + return 0;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static int _mlx5_vdpa_create_mr(struct mlx5_vdpa_dev *mvdev,
> > > + struct vhost_iotlb *iotlb, unsigned int
> > > asid)
> > > +{
> > > + int err;
> > > +
> > > + err = _mlx5_vdpa_create_dvq_mr(mvdev, iotlb, asid);
> > > + if (err)
> > > + return err;
> > > +
> > > + err = _mlx5_vdpa_create_cvq_mr(mvdev, iotlb, asid);
> > > + if (err)
> > > + goto out_err;
> > > +
> > > return 0;
> > >
> > > out_err:
> > > - if (mvdev->group2asid[MLX5_VDPA_DATAVQ_GROUP] == asid) {
> > > - if (iotlb)
> > > - destroy_user_mr(mvdev, mr);
> > > - else
> > > - destroy_dma_mr(mvdev, mr);
> > > - }
> > > + _mlx5_vdpa_destroy_dvq_mr(mvdev, asid);
> > >
> > > return err;
> > > }
> > > --
> > > 2.41.0
> > >
> >
>
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
