From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40633) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dQIE5-0004xU-Gv for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 15:02:10 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dQIE0-0008I5-KI for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 15:02:09 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:53172) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dQIE0-0008Hs-6n for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 15:02:04 -0400 From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git)" Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 20:00:33 +0100 Message-Id: <20170628190047.26159-16-dgilbert@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20170628190047.26159-1-dgilbert@redhat.com> References: <20170628190047.26159-1-dgilbert@redhat.com> Subject: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 15/29] vhost+postcopy: Send address back to qemu List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, a.perevalov@samsung.com, marcandre.lureau@redhat.com, maxime.coquelin@redhat.com, mst@redhat.com, quintela@redhat.com, peterx@redhat.com, lvivier@redhat.com, aarcange@redhat.com From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" We need a better way, but at the moment we need the address of the mappings sent back to qemu so it can interpret the messages on the userfaultfd it reads. Signed-off-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert --- contrib/libvhost-user/libvhost-user.c | 15 +++++++++- hw/virtio/trace-events | 1 + hw/virtio/vhost-user.c | 54 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 69 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/contrib/libvhost-user/libvhost-user.c b/contrib/libvhost-user/libvhost-user.c index be7470e3a9..0658b6e847 100644 --- a/contrib/libvhost-user/libvhost-user.c +++ b/contrib/libvhost-user/libvhost-user.c @@ -479,13 +479,26 @@ vu_set_mem_table_exec(VuDev *dev, VhostUserMsg *vmsg) DPRINT("%s: region %d: Registered userfault for %llx + %llx\n", __func__, i, reg_struct.range.start, reg_struct.range.len); /* TODO: Stash 'zero' support flags somewhere */ - /* TODO: Get address back to QEMU */ + /* TODO: We need to find a way for the qemu not to see the virtual + * addresses of the clients, so as to keep better separation. + */ + /* Return the address to QEMU so that it can translate the ufd + * fault addresses back. + */ + msg_region->userspace_addr = (uintptr_t)(mmap_addr + + dev_region->mmap_offset); } close(vmsg->fds[i]); } + if (dev->postcopy_listening) { + /* Need to return the addresses - send the updated message back */ + vmsg->fd_num = 0; + return true; + } + return false; } diff --git a/hw/virtio/trace-events b/hw/virtio/trace-events index 1076dbbb1d..f7be340a45 100644 --- a/hw/virtio/trace-events +++ b/hw/virtio/trace-events @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@ # hw/virtio/vhost-user.c vhost_user_postcopy_listen(void) "" +vhost_user_set_mem_table_postcopy(uint64_t client_addr, uint64_t qhva, int reply_i, int region_i) "client:%"PRIx64" for hva: %"PRIx64" reply %d region %d" # hw/virtio/virtio.c virtqueue_alloc_element(void *elem, size_t sz, unsigned in_num, unsigned out_num) "elem %p size %zd in_num %u out_num %u" diff --git a/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c b/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c index 1f70f5760f..6be3e7ff2d 100644 --- a/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c +++ b/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ #include "qemu/sockets.h" #include "migration/migration.h" #include "migration/postcopy-ram.h" +#include "trace.h" #include #include @@ -131,6 +132,7 @@ struct vhost_user { int slave_fd; NotifierWithReturn postcopy_notifier; struct PostCopyFD postcopy_fd; + uint64_t postcopy_client_bases[VHOST_MEMORY_MAX_NREGIONS]; }; static bool ioeventfd_enabled(void) @@ -298,6 +300,7 @@ static int vhost_user_set_log_base(struct vhost_dev *dev, uint64_t base, static int vhost_user_set_mem_table(struct vhost_dev *dev, struct vhost_memory *mem) { + struct vhost_user *u = dev->opaque; int fds[VHOST_MEMORY_MAX_NREGIONS]; int i, fd; size_t fd_num = 0; @@ -348,6 +351,57 @@ static int vhost_user_set_mem_table(struct vhost_dev *dev, return -1; } + if (u->postcopy_fd.handler) { + VhostUserMsg msg_reply; + int region_i, reply_i; + if (vhost_user_read(dev, &msg_reply) < 0) { + return -1; + } + + if (msg_reply.request != VHOST_USER_SET_MEM_TABLE) { + error_report("%s: Received unexpected msg type." + "Expected %d received %d", __func__, + VHOST_USER_SET_MEM_TABLE, msg_reply.request); + return -1; + } + /* We're using the same structure, just reusing one of the + * fields, so it should be the same size. + */ + if (msg_reply.size != msg.size) { + error_report("%s: Unexpected size for postcopy reply " + "%d vs %d", __func__, msg_reply.size, msg.size); + return -1; + } + + memset(u->postcopy_client_bases, 0, + sizeof(uint64_t) * VHOST_MEMORY_MAX_NREGIONS); + + /* They're in the same order as the regions that were sent + * but some of the regions were skipped (above) if they + * didn't have fd's + */ + for (reply_i = 0, region_i = 0; + region_i < dev->mem->nregions; + region_i++) { + if (reply_i < fd_num && + msg_reply.payload.memory.regions[region_i].guest_phys_addr == + dev->mem->regions[region_i].guest_phys_addr) { + u->postcopy_client_bases[region_i] = + msg_reply.payload.memory.regions[reply_i].userspace_addr; + trace_vhost_user_set_mem_table_postcopy( + msg_reply.payload.memory.regions[reply_i].userspace_addr, + msg.payload.memory.regions[reply_i].userspace_addr, + reply_i, region_i); + reply_i++; + } + } + if (reply_i != fd_num) { + error_report("%s: postcopy reply not fully consumed " + "%d vs %zd", + __func__, reply_i, fd_num); + return -1; + } + } if (reply_supported) { return process_message_reply(dev, &msg); } -- 2.13.0