[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RFC v2 1/1] memory: Delete assertion in memory_region_unregister_io
From: |
Peter Xu |
Subject: |
Re: [RFC v2 1/1] memory: Delete assertion in memory_region_unregister_iommu_notifier |
Date: |
Mon, 29 Jun 2020 09:34:03 -0400 |
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 01:51:47PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>
> On 2020/6/28 下午10:47, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 03:03:41PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > On 2020/6/27 上午5:29, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > > Hi, Eugenio,
> > > >
> > > > (CCing Eric, Yan and Michael too)
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 08:41:22AM +0200, Eugenio Pérez wrote:
> > > > > diff --git a/memory.c b/memory.c
> > > > > index 2f15a4b250..7f789710d2 100644
> > > > > --- a/memory.c
> > > > > +++ b/memory.c
> > > > > @@ -1915,8 +1915,6 @@ void memory_region_notify_one(IOMMUNotifier
> > > > > *notifier,
> > > > > return;
> > > > > }
> > > > > - assert(entry->iova >= notifier->start && entry_end <=
> > > > > notifier->end);
> > > > I can understand removing the assertion should solve the issue, however
> > > > imho
> > > > the major issue is not about this single assertion but the whole
> > > > addr_mask
> > > > issue behind with virtio...
> > >
> > > I don't get here, it looks to the the range was from guest IOMMU drivers.
> > Yes. Note that I didn't mean that it's a problem in virtio, it's just the
> > fact
> > that virtio is the only one I know that would like to support arbitrary
> > address
> > range for the translated region. I don't know about tcg, but vfio should
> > still
> > need some kind of page alignment in both the address and the addr_mask. We
> > have that assumption too across the memory core when we do translations.
>
>
> Right but it looks to me the issue is not the alignment.
>
>
> >
> > A further cause of the issue is the MSI region when vIOMMU enabled -
> > currently
> > we implemented the interrupt region using another memory region so it split
> > the
> > whole DMA region into two parts. That's really a clean approach to IR
> > implementation, however that's also a burden to the invalidation part
> > because
> > then we'll need to handle things like this when the listened range is not
> > page
> > alighed at all (neither 0-0xfedffff, nor 0xfef0000-MAX). If without the IR
> > region (so the whole iommu address range will be a single FlatRange),
>
>
> Is this a bug? I remember that at least for vtd, it won't do any DMAR on the
> intrrupt address range
I don't think it's a bug, at least it's working as how I understand... that
interrupt range is using an IR region, that's why I said the IR region splits
the DMAR region into two pieces, so we have two FlatRange for the same
IOMMUMemoryRegion.
>
>
> > I think
> > we probably don't need most of the logic in vtd_address_space_unmap() at
> > all,
> > then we can directly deliver all the IOTLB invalidations without splitting
> > into
> > small page aligned ranges to all the iommu notifiers. Sadly, so far I still
> > don't have ideal solution for it, because we definitely need IR.
>
>
> Another possible (theoretical) issue (for vhost) is that it can't trigger
> interrupt through the interrupt range.
Hmm.. Could you explain? When IR is enabled, all devices including virtio
who send interrupt to 0xfeeXXXXX should be trapped by IR.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > > For normal IOTLB invalidations, we were trying our best to always make
> > > > IOMMUTLBEntry contain a valid addr_mask to be 2**N-1. E.g., that's
> > > > what we're
> > > > doing with the loop in vtd_address_space_unmap().
> > >
> > > I'm sure such such assumption can work for any type of IOMMU.
> > >
> > >
> > > > But this is not the first time that we may want to break this
> > > > assumption for
> > > > virtio so that we make the IOTLB a tuple of (start, len), then that len
> > > > can be
> > > > not a address mask any more. That seems to be more efficient for
> > > > things like
> > > > vhost because iotlbs there are not page based, so it'll be inefficient
> > > > if we
> > > > always guarantee the addr_mask because it'll be quite a lot more
> > > > roundtrips of
> > > > the same range of invalidation. Here we've encountered another issue of
> > > > triggering the assertion with virtio-net, but only with the old RHEL7
> > > > guest.
> > > >
> > > > I'm thinking whether we can make the IOTLB invalidation configurable by
> > > > specifying whether the backend of the notifier can handle arbitary
> > > > address
> > > > range in some way. So we still have the guaranteed addr_masks by
> > > > default
> > > > (since I still don't think totally break the addr_mask restriction is
> > > > wise...),
> > > > however we can allow the special backends to take adavantage of using
> > > > arbitary
> > > > (start, len) ranges for reasons like performance.
> > > >
> > > > To do that, a quick idea is to introduce a flag
> > > > IOMMU_NOTIFIER_ARBITRARY_MASK
> > > > to IOMMUNotifierFlag, to declare that the iommu notifier (and its
> > > > backend) can
> > > > take arbitrary address mask, then it can be any value and finally
> > > > becomes a
> > > > length rather than an addr_mask. Then for every iommu notify() we can
> > > > directly
> > > > deliver whatever we've got from the upper layer to this notifier. With
> > > > the new
> > > > flag, vhost can do iommu_notifier_init() with UNMAP|ARBITRARY_MASK so it
> > > > declares this capability. Then no matter for device iotlb or normal
> > > > iotlb, we
> > > > skip the complicated procedure to split a big range into small ranges
> > > > that are
> > > > with strict addr_mask, but directly deliver the message to the iommu
> > > > notifier.
> > > > E.g., we can skip the loop in vtd_address_space_unmap() if the notifier
> > > > is with
> > > > ARBITRARY flag set.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure coupling IOMMU capability to notifier is the best choice.
> > IMHO it's not an IOMMU capability. The flag I wanted to introduce is a
> > capability of the one who listens to the IOMMU TLB updates. For our case,
> > it's
> > virtio/vhost's capability to allow arbitrary length. The IOMMU itself
> > definitely has some limitation on the address range to be bound to an IOTLB
> > invalidation, e.g., the device-iotlb we're talking here only accept both the
> > iova address and addr_mask to be aligned to 2**N-1.
>
>
> I think this go back to one of our previous discussion of whether to
> introduce a dedicated notifiers for device IOTLB.
>
> For IOMMU, it might have limitation like GAW, but for device IOTLB it
> probably doesn't. That's the reason we hit the assert here.
I feel like even for hardware it shouldn't be arbitrary either, because the
device iotlb sent from at least vt-d driver is very restricted too (borrowing
the comment you wrote :):
/* According to ATS spec table 2.4:
* S = 0, bits 15:12 = xxxx range size: 4K
* S = 1, bits 15:12 = xxx0 range size: 8K
* S = 1, bits 15:12 = xx01 range size: 16K
* S = 1, bits 15:12 = x011 range size: 32K
* S = 1, bits 15:12 = 0111 range size: 64K
* ...
*/
>
>
> >
> > > How about just convert to use a range [start, end] for any notifier and
> > > move
> > > the checks (e.g the assert) into the actual notifier implemented (vhost or
> > > vfio)?
> > IOMMUTLBEntry itself is the abstraction layer of TLB entry. Hardware TLB
> > entry
> > is definitely not arbitrary range either (because AFAICT the hardware should
> > only cache PFN rather than address, so at least PAGE_SIZE aligned).
> > Introducing this flag will already make this trickier just to avoid
> > introducing
> > another similar struct to IOMMUTLBEntry, but I really don't want to make it
> > a
> > default option... Not to mention I probably have no reason to urge the rest
> > iommu notifier users (tcg, vfio) to change their existing good code to suite
> > any of the backend who can cooperate with arbitrary address ranges...
>
>
> Ok, so it looks like we need a dedicated notifiers to device IOTLB.
Or we can also make a new flag for device iotlb just like current UNMAP? Then
we replace the vhost type from UNMAP to DEVICE_IOTLB. But IMHO using the
ARBITRARY_LENGTH flag would work in a similar way. DEVICE_IOTLB flag could
also allow virtio/vhost to only receive one invalidation (now IIUC it'll
receive both iotlb and device-iotlb for unmapping a page when ats=on), but then
ats=on will be a must and it could break some old (misconfiged) qemu because
afaict previously virtio/vhost could even work with vIOMMU (accidentally) even
without ats=on.
Thanks,
--
Peter Xu
- [RFC v2 0/1] memory: Delete assertion in memory_region_unregister_iommu_notifier, Eugenio Pérez, 2020/06/26
- [RFC v2 1/1] memory: Delete assertion in memory_region_unregister_iommu_notifier, Eugenio Pérez, 2020/06/26
- Re: [RFC v2 1/1] memory: Delete assertion in memory_region_unregister_iommu_notifier, Jason Wang, 2020/06/28
- Re: [RFC v2 1/1] memory: Delete assertion in memory_region_unregister_iommu_notifier, Peter Xu, 2020/06/28
- Re: [RFC v2 1/1] memory: Delete assertion in memory_region_unregister_iommu_notifier, Jason Wang, 2020/06/29
- Re: [RFC v2 1/1] memory: Delete assertion in memory_region_unregister_iommu_notifier,
Peter Xu <=
- Re: [RFC v2 1/1] memory: Delete assertion in memory_region_unregister_iommu_notifier, Jason Wang, 2020/06/29
- Re: [RFC v2 1/1] memory: Delete assertion in memory_region_unregister_iommu_notifier, Jason Wang, 2020/06/30
- Re: [RFC v2 1/1] memory: Delete assertion in memory_region_unregister_iommu_notifier, Michael S. Tsirkin, 2020/06/30
- Re: [RFC v2 1/1] memory: Delete assertion in memory_region_unregister_iommu_notifier, Jason Wang, 2020/06/30
- Re: [RFC v2 1/1] memory: Delete assertion in memory_region_unregister_iommu_notifier, Peter Xu, 2020/06/30
- Re: [RFC v2 1/1] memory: Delete assertion in memory_region_unregister_iommu_notifier, Peter Xu, 2020/06/30
Re: [RFC v2 0/1] memory: Delete assertion in memory_region_unregister_iommu_notifier, Paolo Bonzini, 2020/06/29