On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 01:19:54PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 12:31:22PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 11:29:59AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 01:44:46PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote:
[..]
CCing Tom. @Tom does vhost-vsock work for you with SEV and current qemu?
Also, one can specify iommu_platform=on on a device that ain't a part of
a secure-capable VM, just for the fun of it. And that breaks
vhost-vsock. Or is setting iommu_platform=on only valid if
qemu-system-s390x is protected virtualization capable?
BTW, I don't have a strong opinion on the fixes tag. We currently do not
recommend setting iommu_platform, and thus I don't think we care too
much about past qemus having problems with it.
Regards,
Halil
Let's just say if we do have a Fixes: tag we want to set it correctly to
the commit that needs this fix.
I finally did some digging regarding the performance degradation. For
s390x the performance degradation on vhost-net was introduced by commit
076a93d797 ("exec: simplify address_space_get_iotlb_entry"). Before
IOMMUTLBEntry.addr_mask used to be based on plen, which in turn was
calculated as the rest of the memory regions size (from address), and
covered most of the guest address space. That is we didn't have a whole
lot of IOTLB API overhead.
With commit 076a93d797 I see IOMMUTLBEntry.addr_mask == 0xfff which comes
as ~TARGET_PAGE_MASK from flatview_do_translate(). To have things working
properly I applied 75e5b70e6, b021d1c044, and d542800d1e on the level of
076a93d797 and 076a93d797~1.
Peter, what's your take on this one?
Commit 076a93d797 was one of the patchset where we want to provide
sensible IOTLB entries and also that should start to work with huge
pages.
So the issue bundamentally is that it
never produces entries larger than page size.
Wasteful even just with huge pages, all the more
so which passthrough which could have giga-byte
entries.
Want to try fixing that?
Yes we can fix that, but I'm still not sure whether changing the
interface of address_space_get_iotlb_entry() to cover adhoc regions is
a good idea, because I think it's still a memory core API and imho it
would still be good to have IOTLBs returned to be what the hardware
will be using (always page aligned IOTLBs). Also it would still be
not ideal because vhost backend will still need to send the MISSING
messages and block for each of the continuous guest memory ranges
registered, so there will still be misterious delay. Not to say
logically all the caches can be invalidated too so in that sense I
think it's as hacky as the vhost speedup patch mentioned below..
Ideally I think vhost should be able to know when PT is enabled or
disabled for the device, so the vhost backend (kernel or userspace)
should be able to directly use GPA for DMA. That might need some new
vhost interface.