Message-ID: <9747a71d-c6d0-b67b-a3b1-c84848268f46@linaro.org>
Date:   Mon, 5 Jun 2023 14:48:09 -0500
From:   Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org>
To:     Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@...cinc.com>,
        Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
        Prakruthi Deepak Heragu <quic_pheragu@...cinc.com>
Cc:     Murali Nalajala <quic_mnalajal@...cinc.com>,
        Trilok Soni <quic_tsoni@...cinc.com>,
        Srivatsa Vaddagiri <quic_svaddagi@...cinc.com>,
        Carl van Schaik <quic_cvanscha@...cinc.com>,
        Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 09/24] gunyah: rsc_mgr: Add RPC for sharing memory

On 5/9/23 3:47 PM, Elliot Berman wrote:
> Gunyah resource manager provides API to manipulate stage 2 page tables.
> Manipulations are represented as a memory parcel. Memory parcels

Not a huge deal, but maybe:
   The Gunyah resource manager provides an API for manipulating stage 2
   page tables.  The API uses "memory parcels" to represent regions of
   memory affected by API calls.

> describe a list of memory regions (intermediate physical address and

...(intermediate physical address--IPA--and size)...

> size), a list of new permissions for VMs, and the memory type (DDR or
> MMIO). Memory parcels are uniquely identified by a handle allocated by

s/Memory parcels are/Each memory parcel is/

Also, as I recall, a memory parcel is contiguous memory in
the guest address space.  If that's true, it might be worth
mentioning (here and/or in the code).

> Gunyah. There are a few types of memory parcel sharing which Gunyah
> supports:
> 
>   - Sharing: the guest and host VM both have access
>   - Lending: only the guest has access; host VM loses access
>   - Donating: Permanently lent (not reclaimed even if guest shuts down)
> 
> Memory parcels that have been shared or lent can be reclaimed by the
> host via an additional call. The reclaim operation restores the original
> access the host VM had to the memory parcel and removes the access to
> other VM.
> 
> One point to note that memory parcels don't describe where in the guest
> VM the memory parcel should reside. The guest VM must accept the memory
> parcel either explicitly via a "gh_rm_mem_accept" call (not introduced
> here) or be configured to accept it automatically at boot. As the guest
> VM accepts the memory parcel, it also mentions the IPA it wants to place
> memory parcel.

I have quite a few small comments and questions.  Some of the
questions arise because I haven't done a very deep review this
time, so I might just be missing or forgetting bits of the
bigger picture.

My feedback is down to nits though, for the most part.  Consider
what I say, but even if you ignore much of it:

Reviewed-by: Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org>

> Co-developed-by: Prakruthi Deepak Heragu <quic_pheragu@...cinc.com>
> Signed-off-by: Prakruthi Deepak Heragu <quic_pheragu@...cinc.com>
> Signed-off-by: Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@...cinc.com>
> ---
>   drivers/virt/gunyah/rsc_mgr_rpc.c | 227 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   include/linux/gunyah_rsc_mgr.h    |  48 +++++++
>   2 files changed, 275 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/virt/gunyah/rsc_mgr_rpc.c b/drivers/virt/gunyah/rsc_mgr_rpc.c
> index a4a9f0ba4e1f..4f25f07400b3 100644
> --- a/drivers/virt/gunyah/rsc_mgr_rpc.c
> +++ b/drivers/virt/gunyah/rsc_mgr_rpc.c
> @@ -6,6 +6,12 @@
>   #include <linux/gunyah_rsc_mgr.h>
>   #include "rsc_mgr.h"
>   
> +/* Message IDs: Memory Management */
> +#define GH_RM_RPC_MEM_LEND			0x51000012
> +#define GH_RM_RPC_MEM_SHARE			0x51000013
> +#define GH_RM_RPC_MEM_RECLAIM			0x51000015
> +#define GH_RM_RPC_MEM_APPEND			0x51000018

These definitions seem to be permanent, unchanging, definitional
values for the Gunyah RM API.  It seems like they could reside
in a file that reinforces that--like "gh_rm_api.h" or something.

That said, nobody else will be using these, so I guess defining
it here makes sense.

> +
>   /* Message IDs: VM Management */
>   #define GH_RM_RPC_VM_ALLOC_VMID			0x56000001
>   #define GH_RM_RPC_VM_DEALLOC_VMID		0x56000002
> @@ -22,6 +28,46 @@ struct gh_rm_vm_common_vmid_req {
>   	__le16 _padding;
>   } __packed;
>   
> +/* Call: MEM_LEND, MEM_SHARE */
> +#define GH_MEM_SHARE_REQ_FLAGS_APPEND		BIT(1)
> +
> +struct gh_rm_mem_share_req_header {
> +	u8 mem_type;
> +	u8 _padding0;
> +	u8 flags;
> +	u8 _padding1;
> +	__le32 label;
> +} __packed;
> +
> +struct gh_rm_mem_share_req_acl_section {
> +	__le32 n_entries;
> +	struct gh_rm_mem_acl_entry entries[];
> +};
> +
> +struct gh_rm_mem_share_req_mem_section {
> +	__le16 n_entries;
> +	__le16 _padding;
> +	struct gh_rm_mem_entry entries[];
> +};
> +
> +/* Call: MEM_RELEASE */
> +struct gh_rm_mem_release_req {
> +	__le32 mem_handle;
> +	u8 flags; /* currently not used */
> +	u8 _padding0;
> +	__le16 _padding1;
> +} __packed;
> +
> +/* Call: MEM_APPEND */
> +#define GH_MEM_APPEND_REQ_FLAGS_END		BIT(0)
> +
> +struct gh_rm_mem_append_req_header {
> +	__le32 mem_handle;
> +	u8 flags;
> +	u8 _padding0;
> +	__le16 _padding1;
> +} __packed;
> +
>   /* Call: VM_ALLOC */
>   struct gh_rm_vm_alloc_vmid_resp {
>   	__le16 vmid;
> @@ -51,6 +97,8 @@ struct gh_rm_vm_config_image_req {
>   	__le64 dtb_size;
>   } __packed;
>   
> +#define GH_RM_MAX_MEM_ENTRIES	512
> +
>   /*
>    * Several RM calls take only a VMID as a parameter and give only standard
>    * response back. Deduplicate boilerplate code by using this common call.
> @@ -64,6 +112,185 @@ static int gh_rm_common_vmid_call(struct gh_rm *rm, u32 message_id, u16 vmid)
>   	return gh_rm_call(rm, message_id, &req_payload, sizeof(req_payload), NULL, NULL);
>   }
>   
> +static int _gh_rm_mem_append(struct gh_rm *rm, u32 mem_handle, bool end_append,
> +			struct gh_rm_mem_entry *mem_entries, size_t n_mem_entries)
> +{
> +	struct gh_rm_mem_share_req_mem_section *mem_section;
> +	struct gh_rm_mem_append_req_header *req_header;
> +	size_t msg_size = 0;
> +	void *msg;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	msg_size += sizeof(struct gh_rm_mem_append_req_header);
> +	msg_size += struct_size(mem_section, entries, n_mem_entries);
> +
> +	msg = kzalloc(msg_size, GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!msg)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +	req_header = msg;
> +	mem_section = (void *)req_header + sizeof(struct gh_rm_mem_append_req_header);

You could use req_header + 1.  Even if not, use sizeof(*req_header).

> +
> +	req_header->mem_handle = cpu_to_le32(mem_handle);
> +	if (end_append)
> +		req_header->flags |= GH_MEM_APPEND_REQ_FLAGS_END;
> +
> +	mem_section->n_entries = cpu_to_le16(n_mem_entries);
> +	memcpy(mem_section->entries, mem_entries, sizeof(*mem_entries) * n_mem_entries);
> +
> +	ret = gh_rm_call(rm, GH_RM_RPC_MEM_APPEND, msg, msg_size, NULL, NULL);
> +	kfree(msg);
> +
> +	return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static int gh_rm_mem_append(struct gh_rm *rm, u32 mem_handle,
> +			struct gh_rm_mem_entry *mem_entries, size_t n_mem_entries)
> +{
> +	bool end_append;
> +	int ret = 0;
> +	size_t n;
> +
> +	while (n_mem_entries) {
> +		if (n_mem_entries > GH_RM_MAX_MEM_ENTRIES) {
> +			end_append = false;
> +			n = GH_RM_MAX_MEM_ENTRIES;
> +		} else {
> +			end_append = true;
> +			n = n_mem_entries;
> +		}
> +
> +		ret = _gh_rm_mem_append(rm, mem_handle, end_append, mem_entries, n);
> +		if (ret)
> +			break;
> +
> +		mem_entries += n;
> +		n_mem_entries -= n;
> +	}
> +
> +	return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static int gh_rm_mem_lend_common(struct gh_rm *rm, u32 message_id, struct gh_rm_mem_parcel *p)
> +{
> +	size_t msg_size = 0, initial_mem_entries = p->n_mem_entries, resp_size;
> +	size_t acl_section_size, mem_section_size;
> +	struct gh_rm_mem_share_req_acl_section *acl_section;
> +	struct gh_rm_mem_share_req_mem_section *mem_section;
> +	struct gh_rm_mem_share_req_header *req_header;
> +	u32 *attr_section;
> +	__le32 *resp;
> +	void *msg;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	if (!p->acl_entries || !p->n_acl_entries || !p->mem_entries || !p->n_mem_entries ||
> +	    p->n_acl_entries > U8_MAX || p->mem_handle != GH_MEM_HANDLE_INVAL)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	if (initial_mem_entries > GH_RM_MAX_MEM_ENTRIES)
> +		initial_mem_entries = GH_RM_MAX_MEM_ENTRIES;

Is it OK to truncate the number of entries silently?

> +
> +	acl_section_size = struct_size(acl_section, entries, p->n_acl_entries);

Is there a limit on the number of ACL entries (as there is for
the number of mem entries).

> +	mem_section_size = struct_size(mem_section, entries, initial_mem_entries);
> +	/* The format of the message goes:
> +	 * request header
> +	 * ACL entries (which VMs get what kind of access to this memory parcel)
> +	 * Memory entries (list of memory regions to share)
> +	 * Memory attributes (currently unused, we'll hard-code the size to 0)
> +	 */
> +	msg_size += sizeof(struct gh_rm_mem_share_req_header);
> +	msg_size += acl_section_size;
> +	msg_size += mem_section_size;
> +	msg_size += sizeof(u32); /* for memory attributes, currently unused */
> +
> +	msg = kzalloc(msg_size, GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!msg)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +	req_header = msg;
> +	acl_section = (void *)req_header + sizeof(*req_header);
> +	mem_section = (void *)acl_section + acl_section_size;
> +	attr_section = (void *)mem_section + mem_section_size;
> +
> +	req_header->mem_type = p->mem_type;
> +	if (initial_mem_entries != p->n_mem_entries)
> +		req_header->flags |= GH_MEM_SHARE_REQ_FLAGS_APPEND;
> +	req_header->label = cpu_to_le32(p->label);
> +
> +	acl_section->n_entries = cpu_to_le32(p->n_acl_entries);
> +	memcpy(acl_section->entries, p->acl_entries,
> +		flex_array_size(acl_section, entries, p->n_acl_entries));
> +
> +	mem_section->n_entries = cpu_to_le16(initial_mem_entries);
> +	memcpy(mem_section->entries, p->mem_entries,
> +		flex_array_size(mem_section, entries, initial_mem_entries));
> +
> +	/* Set n_entries for memory attribute section to 0 */
> +	*attr_section = 0;
> +
> +	ret = gh_rm_call(rm, message_id, msg, msg_size, (void **)&resp, &resp_size);
> +	kfree(msg);
> +
> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;
> +
> +	p->mem_handle = le32_to_cpu(*resp);
> +	kfree(resp);
> +
> +	if (initial_mem_entries != p->n_mem_entries) {
> +		ret = gh_rm_mem_append(rm, p->mem_handle,
> +					&p->mem_entries[initial_mem_entries],
> +					p->n_mem_entries - initial_mem_entries);

Will there always be at most one gh_rm_mem_append() call?

> +		if (ret) {
> +			gh_rm_mem_reclaim(rm, p);
> +			p->mem_handle = GH_MEM_HANDLE_INVAL;
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	return ret;
> +}

. . .

Powered by blists - more mailing lists