On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 3:36 PM Si-Wei Liu <si-wei.liu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/12/2023 8:01 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 5:05 PM Si-Wei Liu <si-wei.liu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> Devices with on-chip IOMMU or vendor specific IOTLB implementation
> >> may need to restore iotlb mapping to the initial or default state
> >> using the .reset_map op, as it's desirable for some parent devices
> >> to solely manipulate mappings by its own, independent of virtio device
> >> state. For instance, device reset does not cause mapping go away on
> >> such IOTLB model in need of persistent mapping. Before vhost-vdpa
> >> is going away, give them a chance to reset iotlb back to the initial
> >> state in vhost_vdpa_cleanup().
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Si-Wei Liu <si-wei.liu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/vhost/vdpa.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
> >> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vdpa.c b/drivers/vhost/vdpa.c
> >> index 851535f..a3f8160 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/vhost/vdpa.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/vhost/vdpa.c
> >> @@ -131,6 +131,15 @@ static struct vhost_vdpa_as *vhost_vdpa_find_alloc_as(struct vhost_vdpa *v,
> >> return vhost_vdpa_alloc_as(v, asid);
> >> }
> >>
> >> +static void vhost_vdpa_reset_map(struct vhost_vdpa *v, u32 asid)
> >> +{
> >> + struct vdpa_device *vdpa = v->vdpa;
> >> + const struct vdpa_config_ops *ops = vdpa->config;
> >> +
> >> + if (ops->reset_map)
> >> + ops->reset_map(vdpa, asid);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> static int vhost_vdpa_remove_as(struct vhost_vdpa *v, u32 asid)
> >> {
> >> struct vhost_vdpa_as *as = asid_to_as(v, asid);
> >> @@ -140,6 +149,13 @@ static int vhost_vdpa_remove_as(struct vhost_vdpa *v, u32 asid)
> >>
> >> hlist_del(&as->hash_link);
> >> vhost_vdpa_iotlb_unmap(v, &as->iotlb, 0ULL, 0ULL - 1, asid);
> >> + /*
> >> + * Devices with vendor specific IOMMU may need to restore
> >> + * iotlb to the initial or default state which is not done
> >> + * through device reset, as the IOTLB mapping manipulation
> >> + * could be decoupled from the virtio device life cycle.
> >> + */
> > Should we do this according to whether IOTLB_PRESIST is set?
> Well, in theory this seems like so but it's unnecessary code change
> actually, as that is the way how vDPA parent behind platform IOMMU works
> today, and userspace doesn't break as of today. :)
Well, this is one question I've ever asked before. You have explained
that one of the reason that we don't break userspace is that they may
couple IOTLB reset with vDPA reset as well. One example is the Qemu.
>
> As explained in previous threads [1][2], when IOTLB_PERSIST is not set
> it doesn't necessarily mean the iotlb will definitely be destroyed
> across reset (think about the platform IOMMU case), so userspace today
> is already tolerating enough with either good or bad IOMMU. This code of
> not checking IOTLB_PERSIST being set is intentional, there's no point to
> emulate bad IOMMU behavior even for older userspace (with improper
> emulation to be done it would result in even worse performance).
For two reasons:
1) backend features need acked by userspace this is by design
2) keep the odd behaviour seems to be more safe as we can't audit
every userspace program
Thanks
> I think
> the purpose of the IOTLB_PERSIST flag is just to give userspace 100%
> certainty of persistent iotlb mapping not getting lost across vdpa reset.
>
> Thanks,
> -Siwei
>
> [1]
> https://lore.kernel.org/virtualization/9f118fc9-4f6f-dd67-a291-be78152e47fd@xxxxxxxxxx/
> [2]
> https://lore.kernel.org/virtualization/3364adfd-1eb7-8bce-41f9-bfe5473f1f2e@xxxxxxxxxx/
> > Otherwise
> > we may break old userspace.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >> + vhost_vdpa_reset_map(v, asid);
> >> kfree(as);
> >>
> >> return 0;
> >> --
> >> 1.8.3.1
> >>
>
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
