Re: [RFC PATCH] vfio/pci: Add ioeventfd support

[Auger Eric <eric.auger@redhat.com>]

Hi,

On 08/02/18 02:22, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> On 08/02/18 01:12, Alex Williamson wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Feb 2018 15:48:26 +1100
>> Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru> wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/02/18 15:25, Alex Williamson wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 7 Feb 2018 15:09:22 +1100
>>>> Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru> wrote:  
>>>>> On 07/02/18 11:08, Alex Williamson wrote:  
>>>>>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h b/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h
>>>>>> index e3301dbd27d4..07966a5f0832 100644
>>>>>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h
>>>>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h
>>>>>> @@ -503,6 +503,30 @@ struct vfio_pci_hot_reset {
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  #define VFIO_DEVICE_PCI_HOT_RESET	_IO(VFIO_TYPE, VFIO_BASE + 13)
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> +/**
>>>>>> + * VFIO_DEVICE_IOEVENTFD - _IOW(VFIO_TYPE, VFIO_BASE + 14,
>>>>>> + *                              struct vfio_device_ioeventfd)
>>>>>> + *
>>>>>> + * Perform a write to the device at the specified device fd offset, with
>>>>>> + * the specified data and width when the provided eventfd is triggered.
>>>>>> + *
>>>>>> + * Return: 0 on success, -errno on failure.
>>>>>> + */
>>>>>> +struct vfio_device_ioeventfd {
>>>>>> +	__u32	argsz;
>>>>>> +	__u32	flags;
>>>>>> +#define VFIO_DEVICE_IOEVENTFD_8		(1 << 0) /* 1-byte write */
>>>>>> +#define VFIO_DEVICE_IOEVENTFD_16	(1 << 1) /* 2-byte write */
>>>>>> +#define VFIO_DEVICE_IOEVENTFD_32	(1 << 2) /* 4-byte write */
>>>>>> +#define VFIO_DEVICE_IOEVENTFD_64	(1 << 3) /* 8-byte write */
>>>>>> +#define VFIO_DEVICE_IOEVENTFD_SIZE_MASK	(0xf)
>>>>>> +	__u64	offset;			/* device fd offset of write */
>>>>>> +	__u64	data;			/* data to be written */
>>>>>> +	__s32	fd;			/* -1 for de-assignment */
>>>>>> +};
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +#define VFIO_DEVICE_IOEVENTFD		_IO(VFIO_TYPE, VFIO_BASE + 14)    
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this a first ioctl with endianness fixed to little-endian? I'd suggest
>>>>> to comment on that as things like vfio_info_cap_header do use the host
>>>>> endianness.  
>>>>
>>>> Look at our current read and write interface, we call leXX_to_cpu
>>>> before calling iowriteXX there and I think a user would logically
>>>> expect to use the same data format here as they would there.  
>>>
>>> If the data is "char data[8]" (i.e. bytestream), then it can be expected to
>>> be device/bus endian (i.e. PCI == little endian), but if it is u64 - then I
>>> am not so sure really, and this made me look around. It could be "__le64
>>> data" too.
>>>
>>>> Also note
>>>> that iowriteXX does a cpu_to_leXX, so are we really defining the
>>>> interface as little-endian or are we just trying to make ourselves
>>>> endian neutral and counter that implicit conversion?  Thanks,  
>>>
>>> Defining it LE is fine, I just find it a bit confusing when
>>> vfio_info_cap_header is host endian but vfio_device_ioeventfd is not.
>>
>> But I don't think we are defining the interface as little-endian.
>> iowriteXX does a cpu_to_leXX byteswap.  Therefore in order to maintain
>> endian neutrality, if the data does a cpu->le swap on the way out, I
>> need to do a le->cpu swap on the way in, right?  Please defend the
>> assertion that we're creating a little-endian interface.  Thanks,
> 
> 
> vfio_pci_ioctl() passes "endian-neutral" ioeventfd.data to
> vfio_pci_ioeventfd() which immediately does the leXX_to_cpu() conversion
> (and uses the result later on in iowriteXX(), which is not VFIO API) so I
> read it as the ioctl really expects LE.
> 
> The QEMU part - vfio_nvidia_mirror_quirk MR - does not swap bytes but the
> MR itself it declared DEVICE_LITTLE_ENDIAN which means
> vfio_nvidia_quirk_mirror_write() receives byteswapped @data in the host
> endian == bigendian on a big endian host. So the ioctl() handler will
> receive a BE value, do byteswap #1 in leXX_to_cpu(), and then do byteswap
> #2 in iowriteXX() so after all a BE will be written to a device. So I'd say
> we rather do not need leXX_to_cpu() in vfio_pci_ioeventfd(). Correct me
> where I am wrong. Thanks,

It is not crystal clear to me what is the outcome of this discussion.
Please can you clarify?

At the beginning I understood we had a chain of lexx_to_cpu and
cpu_to_lexx (in iowritexx) so it was neutral. Now I am lost about what
we want.

Thanks

Eric
> 
> 
>