Message-ID: <52E6CCE7.4090708@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 27 Jan 2014 16:17:27 -0500
From:	Don Dutile <ddutile@...hat.com>
To:	Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
CC:	Varun Sethi <Varun.Sethi@...escale.com>,
	"iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] vfio/iommu_type1: Multi-IOMMU domain support

On 01/20/2014 11:21 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-01-20 at 14:45 +0000, Varun Sethi wrote:
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Alex Williamson [mailto:alex.williamson@...hat.com]
>>> Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 2:06 AM
>>> To: Sethi Varun-B16395
>>> Cc: iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
>>> Subject: [RFC PATCH] vfio/iommu_type1: Multi-IOMMU domain support
>>>
>>> RFC: This is not complete but I want to share with Varun the dirrection
>>> I'm thinking about.  In particular, I'm really not sure if we want to
>>> introduce a "v2" interface version with slightly different unmap
>>> semantics.  QEMU doesn't care about the difference, but other users
>>> might.  Be warned, I'm not even sure if this code works at the moment.
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Alex
>>>
>>>
>>> We currently have a problem that we cannot support advanced features of
>>> an IOMMU domain (ex. IOMMU_CACHE), because we have no guarantee that
>>> those features will be supported by all of the hardware units involved
>>> with the domain over its lifetime.  For instance, the Intel VT-d
>>> architecture does not require that all DRHDs support snoop control.  If
>>> we create a domain based on a device behind a DRHD that does support
>>> snoop control and enable SNP support via the IOMMU_CACHE mapping option,
>>> we cannot then add a device behind a DRHD which does not support snoop
>>> control or we'll get reserved bit faults from the SNP bit in the
>>> pagetables.  To add to the complexity, we can't know the properties of a
>>> domain until a device is attached.
>> [Sethi Varun-B16395] Effectively, it's the same iommu and iommu_ops
>> are common across all bus types. The hardware feature differences are
>> abstracted by the driver.
>
> That's a simplifying assumption that is not made anywhere else in the
> code.  The IOMMU API allows entirely independent IOMMU drivers to
> register per bus_type.  There is no guarantee that all devices are
> backed by the same IOMMU hardware unit or make use of the same
> iommu_ops.
>
>>> We could pass this problem off to userspace and require that a separate
>>> vfio container be used, but we don't know how to handle page accounting
>>> in that case.  How do we know that a page pinned in one container is the
>>> same page as a different container and avoid double billing the user for
>>> the page.
>>>
>>> The solution is therefore to support multiple IOMMU domains per
>>> container.  In the majority of cases, only one domain will be required
>>> since hardware is typically consistent within a system.  However, this
>>> provides us the ability to validate compatibility of domains and support
>>> mixed environments where page table flags can be different between
>>> domains.
>>>
>>> To do this, our DMA tracking needs to change.  We currently try to
>>> coalesce user mappings into as few tracking entries as possible.  The
>>> problem then becomes that we lose granularity of user mappings.  We've
>>> never guaranteed that a user is able to unmap at a finer granularity than
>>> the original mapping, but we must honor the granularity of the original
>>> mapping.  This coalescing code is therefore removed, allowing only unmaps
>>> covering complete maps.  The change in accounting is fairly small here, a
>>> typical QEMU VM will start out with roughly a dozen entries, so it's
>>> arguable if this coalescing was ever needed.
>>>
>>> We also move IOMMU domain creation to the point where a group is attached
>>> to the container.  An interesting side-effect of this is that we now have
>>> access to the device at the time of domain creation and can probe the
>>> devices within the group to determine the bus_type.
>>> This finally makes vfio_iommu_type1 completely device/bus agnostic.
>>> In fact, each IOMMU domain can host devices on different buses managed by
>>> different physical IOMMUs, and present a single DMA mapping interface to
>>> the user.  When a new domain is created, mappings are replayed to bring
>>> the IOMMU pagetables up to the state of the current container.  And of
>>> course, DMA mapping and unmapping automatically traverse all of the
>>> configured IOMMU domains.
>>>
>> [Sethi Varun-B16395] This code still checks to see that devices being
>> attached to the domain are connected to the same bus type. If we
>> intend to merge devices from different bus types but attached to
>> compatible domains in to a single domain, why can't we avoid the bus
>> check? Why can't we remove the bus dependency from domain allocation?
>
> So if I were to test iommu_ops instead of bus_type (ie. assume that if a
> if an IOMMU driver manages iommu_ops across bus_types that it can accept
> the devices), would that satisfy your concern?
>
> It may be possible to remove the bus_type dependency from domain
> allocation, but the IOMMU API currently makes the assumption that
> there's one IOMMU driver per bus_type.  Your fix to remove the bus_type
> dependency from iommu_domain_alloc() adds an assumption that there is
> only one IOMMU driver for all bus_types.  That may work on your
> platform, but I don't think it's a valid assumption in the general case.
> If you'd like to propose alternative ways to remove the bus_type
> dependency, please do.  Thanks,
>
> Alex
>
> _______________________________________________
> iommu mailing list
> iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
>
Making iommu-ops per-bus, and not per-bus-type would solve the problem as well,
as Joerg tried to do at one point.  ... would layer the proper IOMMU for a given
device to the bus it masters. (makes more sense if thought in context of bus's &
devices as objects, and object-oriented semantics ... a device would ask its bus
for it's mapping services, not a 'bus-type'.

-dd

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists