Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 2/2] spec/vhost-user spec: Add IOMMU support

[Peter Xu]

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:10:02PM +0200, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
> This patch specifies the master/slave communication to support
> device IOTLB implementation in slave.
> 
> The vhost_iotlb_msg structure introduced for kernel backends is
> re-used, making the design close between the two backends.
> 
> An exception is the use of the secondary channel to enable the
> slave to send IOTLB miss requests to the master.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Maxime Coquelin <address@hidden>
> ---
>  docs/specs/vhost-user.txt | 56 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 56 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/docs/specs/vhost-user.txt b/docs/specs/vhost-user.txt
> index b365047..048a4d6 100644
> --- a/docs/specs/vhost-user.txt
> +++ b/docs/specs/vhost-user.txt
> @@ -97,6 +97,23 @@ Depending on the request type, payload can be:
>     log offset: offset from start of supplied file descriptor
>         where logging starts (i.e. where guest address 0 would be logged)
>  
> + * An IOTLB message
> +   ---------------------------------------------------------
> +   | iova | size | user address | permissions flags | type |
> +   ---------------------------------------------------------
> +
> +   IOVA: a 64-bit guest I/O virtual address
> +   Size: a 64-bit size
> +   User address: a 64-bit user address
> +   Permissions flags: a 8-bit bit field:
> +    - Bit 0: Read access
> +    - Bit 1: Write access
> +   Type: a 8-bit IOTLB message type:
> +    - 1: IOTLB miss
> +    - 2: IOTLB update
> +    - 3: IOTLB invalidate
> +    - 4: IOTLB access fail
> +
>  In QEMU the vhost-user message is implemented with the following struct:
>  
>  typedef struct VhostUserMsg {
> @@ -109,6 +126,7 @@ typedef struct VhostUserMsg {
>          struct vhost_vring_addr addr;
>          VhostUserMemory memory;
>          VhostUserLog log;
> +        struct vhost_iotlb_msg iotlb;
>      };
>  } QEMU_PACKED VhostUserMsg;
>  
> @@ -258,6 +276,30 @@ Once the source has finished migration, rings will be 
> stopped by
>  the source. No further update must be done before rings are
>  restarted.
>  
> +IOMMU support
> +-------------
> +
> +When the VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM feature has been negotiated, the master has
> +to send IOTLB entries update & invalidation by sending VHOST_USER_IOTLB_MSG
> +requests to the slave with a struct vhost_iotlb_msg payload. For update 
> events,
> +the iotlb payload has to be filled with the update message type (2), the I/O
> +virtual address, the size, the user virtual address, and the permissions
> +flags. For invalidation events, the iotlb payload has to be filled with the
> +update message type (3), the I/O virtual address and the size. On success, 
> the

s/update/invalidate/?

> +slave is expected to reply with a zero payload, non-zero otherwise.

Is this ack mechanism really necessary? If not, not sure it'll be nice
to keep vhost-user/vhost-kernel aligned on this behavior. At least
that'll simplify vhost-user implementation on QEMU side (iiuc even
without introducing new functions for update/invalidate operations).

> +
> +When the VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_SLAVE_REQ is supported by the slave, and the
> +master initiated the slave to master communication channel using the
> +VHOST_USER_SET_SLAVE_REQ_FD request, the slave can send IOTLB miss and access
> +failure events by sending VHOST_USER_IOTLB_MSG requests to the master with a
> +struct vhost_iotlb_msg payload. For miss events, the iotlb payload has to be
> +filled with the miss message type (1), the I/O virtual address and the
> +permissions flags. For access failure event, the iotlb payload has to be
> +filled with the access failure message type (4), the I/O virtual address and
> +the permissions flags. On success, the master is expected to reply  when the
> +request has been handled (for example, on miss requests, once the device 
> IOTLB
> +has been updated) with a zero payload, non-zero otherwise.

Failed to understand the last sentence clearly. IIUC vhost-net will
reply with an UPDATE message when a MISS message is received. Here for
vhost-user are we going to send one extra zero payload after that?

> +
>  Protocol features
>  -----------------
>  
> @@ -524,6 +566,20 @@ Message types
>        has been negotiated, and protocol feature bit 
> VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_SLAVE_REQ
>        bit is present in VHOST_USER_GET_PROTOCOL_FEATURES.
>  
> + * VHOST_USER_IOTLB_MSG
> +
> +      Id: 22
> +      Equivalent ioctl: N/A (equivalent to VHOST_IOTLB_MSG message type)
> +      Initiator: Master or slave
> +
> +      Send IOTLB messages with struct vhost_iotlb_msg as payload.
> +      Master sends such requests to update and invalidate entries in the 
> device
> +      IOTLB. Slave sends such requests to notify of an IOTLB miss, or an 
> IOTLB

s/of//?

> +      access failure. The recipient has to acknowledge the request with
> +      sending zero as u64 payload for success, non-zero otherwise.

Same question here...

Thanks,

> +      This request should be send only when VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM feature
> +      has been successfully negotiated.
> +
>  VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_REPLY_ACK:
>  -------------------------------
>  The original vhost-user specification only demands replies for certain
> -- 
> 2.9.3
> 

-- 
Peter Xu