All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] vfio: Add support for mmapping sub-page MMIO BARs
@ 2016-08-11 11:05 Yongji Xie
  2016-08-11 11:09 ` no-reply
                   ` (2 more replies)
  0 siblings, 3 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Yongji Xie @ 2016-08-11 11:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: alex.williamson; +Cc: qemu-devel, kvm, aik, zhong, gwshan

Now the kernel commit 05f0c03fbac1 ("vfio-pci: Allow to mmap
sub-page MMIO BARs if the mmio page is exclusive") allows VFIO
to mmap sub-page BARs. This is the corresponding QEMU patch.
With those patches applied, we could passthrough sub-page BARs
to guest, which can help to improve IO performance for some devices.

In this patch, we expand MemoryRegions of these sub-page
MMIO BARs to PAGE_SIZE in vfio_pci_write_config(), so that
the BARs could be passed to KVM ioctl KVM_SET_USER_MEMORY_REGION
with a valid size. The expanding size will be recovered when
the base address of sub-page BAR is changed and not page aligned
any more in guest. And we also set the priority of these BARs'
memory regions to zero in case of overlap with BARs which share
the same page with sub-page BARs in guest.

Signed-off-by: Yongji Xie <xyjxie@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
 hw/vfio/common.c |    3 +--
 hw/vfio/pci.c    |   76 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 77 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/hw/vfio/common.c b/hw/vfio/common.c
index b313e7c..1a70307 100644
--- a/hw/vfio/common.c
+++ b/hw/vfio/common.c
@@ -661,8 +661,7 @@ int vfio_region_setup(Object *obj, VFIODevice *vbasedev, VFIORegion *region,
                               region, name, region->size);
 
         if (!vbasedev->no_mmap &&
-            region->flags & VFIO_REGION_INFO_FLAG_MMAP &&
-            !(region->size & ~qemu_real_host_page_mask)) {
+            region->flags & VFIO_REGION_INFO_FLAG_MMAP) {
 
             vfio_setup_region_sparse_mmaps(region, info);
 
diff --git a/hw/vfio/pci.c b/hw/vfio/pci.c
index 7bfa17c..7035617 100644
--- a/hw/vfio/pci.c
+++ b/hw/vfio/pci.c
@@ -1057,6 +1057,65 @@ static const MemoryRegionOps vfio_vga_ops = {
 };
 
 /*
+ * Expand memory region of sub-page(size < PAGE_SIZE) MMIO BAR to page
+ * size if the BAR is in an exclusive page in host so that we could map
+ * this BAR to guest. But this sub-page BAR may not occupy an exclusive
+ * page in guest. So we should set the priority of the expanded memory
+ * region to zero in case of overlap with BARs which share the same page
+ * with the sub-page BAR in guest. Besides, we should also recover the
+ * size of this sub-page BAR when its base address is changed in guest
+ * and not page aligned any more.
+ */
+static void vfio_sub_page_bar_update_mapping(PCIDevice *pdev, int bar)
+{
+    VFIOPCIDevice *vdev = DO_UPCAST(VFIOPCIDevice, pdev, pdev);
+    VFIORegion *region = &vdev->bars[bar].region;
+    MemoryRegion *mmap_mr, *mr;
+    PCIIORegion *r;
+    pcibus_t bar_addr;
+
+    /* Make sure that the whole region is allowed to be mmapped */
+    if (!(region->nr_mmaps == 1 &&
+        region->mmaps[0].size == region->size)) {
+        return;
+    }
+
+    r = &pdev->io_regions[bar];
+    bar_addr = r->addr;
+    if (bar_addr == PCI_BAR_UNMAPPED) {
+        return;
+    }
+
+    mr = region->mem;
+    mmap_mr = &region->mmaps[0].mem;
+    memory_region_transaction_begin();
+    if (memory_region_size(mr) < qemu_real_host_page_size) {
+        if (!(bar_addr & ~qemu_real_host_page_mask) &&
+            memory_region_is_mapped(mr) && region->mmaps[0].mmap) {
+            /* Expand memory region to page size and set priority */
+            memory_region_del_subregion(r->address_space, mr);
+            memory_region_set_size(mr, qemu_real_host_page_size);
+            memory_region_set_size(mmap_mr, qemu_real_host_page_size);
+            memory_region_add_subregion_overlap(r->address_space,
+                                                bar_addr, mr, 0);
+	}
+    } else {
+        /* This case would happen when guest rescan one PCI device */
+        if (bar_addr & ~qemu_real_host_page_mask) {
+            /* Recover the size of memory region */
+            memory_region_set_size(mr, r->size);
+            memory_region_set_size(mmap_mr, r->size);
+        } else if (memory_region_is_mapped(mr)) {
+            /* Set the priority of memory region to zero */
+            memory_region_del_subregion(r->address_space, mr);
+            memory_region_add_subregion_overlap(r->address_space,
+                                                bar_addr, mr, 0);
+        }
+    }
+    memory_region_transaction_commit();
+}
+
+/*
  * PCI config space
  */
 uint32_t vfio_pci_read_config(PCIDevice *pdev, uint32_t addr, int len)
@@ -1139,6 +1198,23 @@ void vfio_pci_write_config(PCIDevice *pdev,
         } else if (was_enabled && !is_enabled) {
             vfio_msix_disable(vdev);
         }
+    } else if (ranges_overlap(addr, len, PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_0, 24) ||
+        range_covers_byte(addr, len, PCI_COMMAND)) {
+        pcibus_t old_addr[PCI_NUM_REGIONS - 1];
+        int bar;
+
+        for (bar = 0; bar < PCI_ROM_SLOT; bar++) {
+            old_addr[bar] = pdev->io_regions[bar].addr;
+        }
+
+        pci_default_write_config(pdev, addr, val, len);
+
+        for (bar = 0; bar < PCI_ROM_SLOT; bar++) {
+            if (old_addr[bar] != pdev->io_regions[bar].addr &&
+                pdev->io_regions[bar].size > 0 &&
+                pdev->io_regions[bar].size < qemu_real_host_page_size)
+                vfio_sub_page_bar_update_mapping(pdev, bar);
+        }
     } else {
         /* Write everything to QEMU to keep emulated bits correct */
         pci_default_write_config(pdev, addr, val, len);
-- 
1.7.9.5


^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] vfio: Add support for mmapping sub-page MMIO BARs
  2016-08-11 11:05 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] vfio: Add support for mmapping sub-page MMIO BARs Yongji Xie
@ 2016-08-11 11:09 ` no-reply
  2016-09-05 10:25 ` Yongji Xie
  2016-09-13 22:55 ` Alex Williamson
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: no-reply @ 2016-08-11 11:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: xyjxie; +Cc: famz, alex.williamson, aik, zhong, qemu-devel, kvm, gwshan

Hi,

Your series seems to have some coding style problems. See output below for
more information:

Message-id: 1470913557-4355-1-git-send-email-xyjxie@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] vfio: Add support for mmapping sub-page MMIO BARs
Type: series

=== TEST SCRIPT BEGIN ===
#!/bin/bash

BASE=base
n=1
total=$(git log --oneline $BASE.. | wc -l)
failed=0

commits="$(git log --format=%H --reverse $BASE..)"
for c in $commits; do
    echo "Checking PATCH $n/$total: $(git show --no-patch --format=%s $c)..."
    if ! git show $c --format=email | ./scripts/checkpatch.pl --mailback -; then
        failed=1
        echo
    fi
    n=$((n+1))
done

exit $failed
=== TEST SCRIPT END ===

Updating 3c8cf5a9c21ff8782164d1def7f44bd888713384
From https://github.com/patchew-project/qemu
 * [new tag]         patchew/1470913557-4355-1-git-send-email-xyjxie@linux.vnet.ibm.com -> patchew/1470913557-4355-1-git-send-email-xyjxie@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Switched to a new branch 'test'
36f327d vfio: Add support for mmapping sub-page MMIO BARs

=== OUTPUT BEGIN ===
Checking PATCH 1/1: vfio: Add support for mmapping sub-page MMIO BARs...
ERROR: code indent should never use tabs
#87: FILE: hw/vfio/pci.c:1101:
+^I}$

total: 1 errors, 0 warnings, 97 lines checked

Your patch has style problems, please review.  If any of these errors
are false positives report them to the maintainer, see
CHECKPATCH in MAINTAINERS.

=== OUTPUT END ===

Test command exited with code: 1


---
Email generated automatically by Patchew [http://patchew.org/].
Please send your feedback to patchew-devel@freelists.org

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] vfio: Add support for mmapping sub-page MMIO BARs
  2016-08-11 11:05 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] vfio: Add support for mmapping sub-page MMIO BARs Yongji Xie
  2016-08-11 11:09 ` no-reply
@ 2016-09-05 10:25 ` Yongji Xie
  2016-09-13 22:55 ` Alex Williamson
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Yongji Xie @ 2016-09-05 10:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: alex.williamson; +Cc: qemu-devel, kvm, aik, zhong, gwshan

Ping?

On 2016/8/11 19:05, Yongji Xie wrote:
> Now the kernel commit 05f0c03fbac1 ("vfio-pci: Allow to mmap
> sub-page MMIO BARs if the mmio page is exclusive") allows VFIO
> to mmap sub-page BARs. This is the corresponding QEMU patch.
> With those patches applied, we could passthrough sub-page BARs
> to guest, which can help to improve IO performance for some devices.
>
> In this patch, we expand MemoryRegions of these sub-page
> MMIO BARs to PAGE_SIZE in vfio_pci_write_config(), so that
> the BARs could be passed to KVM ioctl KVM_SET_USER_MEMORY_REGION
> with a valid size. The expanding size will be recovered when
> the base address of sub-page BAR is changed and not page aligned
> any more in guest. And we also set the priority of these BARs'
> memory regions to zero in case of overlap with BARs which share
> the same page with sub-page BARs in guest.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yongji Xie <xyjxie@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
>   hw/vfio/common.c |    3 +--
>   hw/vfio/pci.c    |   76 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   2 files changed, 77 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/vfio/common.c b/hw/vfio/common.c
> index b313e7c..1a70307 100644
> --- a/hw/vfio/common.c
> +++ b/hw/vfio/common.c
> @@ -661,8 +661,7 @@ int vfio_region_setup(Object *obj, VFIODevice *vbasedev, VFIORegion *region,
>                                 region, name, region->size);
>
>           if (!vbasedev->no_mmap &&
> -            region->flags & VFIO_REGION_INFO_FLAG_MMAP &&
> -            !(region->size & ~qemu_real_host_page_mask)) {
> +            region->flags & VFIO_REGION_INFO_FLAG_MMAP) {
>
>               vfio_setup_region_sparse_mmaps(region, info);
>
> diff --git a/hw/vfio/pci.c b/hw/vfio/pci.c
> index 7bfa17c..7035617 100644
> --- a/hw/vfio/pci.c
> +++ b/hw/vfio/pci.c
> @@ -1057,6 +1057,65 @@ static const MemoryRegionOps vfio_vga_ops = {
>   };
>
>   /*
> + * Expand memory region of sub-page(size < PAGE_SIZE) MMIO BAR to page
> + * size if the BAR is in an exclusive page in host so that we could map
> + * this BAR to guest. But this sub-page BAR may not occupy an exclusive
> + * page in guest. So we should set the priority of the expanded memory
> + * region to zero in case of overlap with BARs which share the same page
> + * with the sub-page BAR in guest. Besides, we should also recover the
> + * size of this sub-page BAR when its base address is changed in guest
> + * and not page aligned any more.
> + */
> +static void vfio_sub_page_bar_update_mapping(PCIDevice *pdev, int bar)
> +{
> +    VFIOPCIDevice *vdev = DO_UPCAST(VFIOPCIDevice, pdev, pdev);
> +    VFIORegion *region = &vdev->bars[bar].region;
> +    MemoryRegion *mmap_mr, *mr;
> +    PCIIORegion *r;
> +    pcibus_t bar_addr;
> +
> +    /* Make sure that the whole region is allowed to be mmapped */
> +    if (!(region->nr_mmaps == 1 &&
> +        region->mmaps[0].size == region->size)) {
> +        return;
> +    }
> +
> +    r = &pdev->io_regions[bar];
> +    bar_addr = r->addr;
> +    if (bar_addr == PCI_BAR_UNMAPPED) {
> +        return;
> +    }
> +
> +    mr = region->mem;
> +    mmap_mr = &region->mmaps[0].mem;
> +    memory_region_transaction_begin();
> +    if (memory_region_size(mr) < qemu_real_host_page_size) {
> +        if (!(bar_addr & ~qemu_real_host_page_mask) &&
> +            memory_region_is_mapped(mr) && region->mmaps[0].mmap) {
> +            /* Expand memory region to page size and set priority */
> +            memory_region_del_subregion(r->address_space, mr);
> +            memory_region_set_size(mr, qemu_real_host_page_size);
> +            memory_region_set_size(mmap_mr, qemu_real_host_page_size);
> +            memory_region_add_subregion_overlap(r->address_space,
> +                                                bar_addr, mr, 0);
> +	}
> +    } else {
> +        /* This case would happen when guest rescan one PCI device */
> +        if (bar_addr & ~qemu_real_host_page_mask) {
> +            /* Recover the size of memory region */
> +            memory_region_set_size(mr, r->size);
> +            memory_region_set_size(mmap_mr, r->size);
> +        } else if (memory_region_is_mapped(mr)) {
> +            /* Set the priority of memory region to zero */
> +            memory_region_del_subregion(r->address_space, mr);
> +            memory_region_add_subregion_overlap(r->address_space,
> +                                                bar_addr, mr, 0);
> +        }
> +    }
> +    memory_region_transaction_commit();
> +}
> +
> +/*
>    * PCI config space
>    */
>   uint32_t vfio_pci_read_config(PCIDevice *pdev, uint32_t addr, int len)
> @@ -1139,6 +1198,23 @@ void vfio_pci_write_config(PCIDevice *pdev,
>           } else if (was_enabled && !is_enabled) {
>               vfio_msix_disable(vdev);
>           }
> +    } else if (ranges_overlap(addr, len, PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_0, 24) ||
> +        range_covers_byte(addr, len, PCI_COMMAND)) {
> +        pcibus_t old_addr[PCI_NUM_REGIONS - 1];
> +        int bar;
> +
> +        for (bar = 0; bar < PCI_ROM_SLOT; bar++) {
> +            old_addr[bar] = pdev->io_regions[bar].addr;
> +        }
> +
> +        pci_default_write_config(pdev, addr, val, len);
> +
> +        for (bar = 0; bar < PCI_ROM_SLOT; bar++) {
> +            if (old_addr[bar] != pdev->io_regions[bar].addr &&
> +                pdev->io_regions[bar].size > 0 &&
> +                pdev->io_regions[bar].size < qemu_real_host_page_size)
> +                vfio_sub_page_bar_update_mapping(pdev, bar);
> +        }
>       } else {
>           /* Write everything to QEMU to keep emulated bits correct */
>           pci_default_write_config(pdev, addr, val, len);


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] vfio: Add support for mmapping sub-page MMIO BARs
  2016-08-11 11:05 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] vfio: Add support for mmapping sub-page MMIO BARs Yongji Xie
  2016-08-11 11:09 ` no-reply
  2016-09-05 10:25 ` Yongji Xie
@ 2016-09-13 22:55 ` Alex Williamson
  2016-09-14  5:04   ` Yongji Xie
  2016-09-30 16:05   ` Paolo Bonzini
  2 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Alex Williamson @ 2016-09-13 22:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Yongji Xie; +Cc: aik, zhong, qemu-devel, kvm, gwshan, Paolo Bonzini

[cc +Paolo]

On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 19:05:57 +0800
Yongji Xie <xyjxie@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> Now the kernel commit 05f0c03fbac1 ("vfio-pci: Allow to mmap
> sub-page MMIO BARs if the mmio page is exclusive") allows VFIO
> to mmap sub-page BARs. This is the corresponding QEMU patch.
> With those patches applied, we could passthrough sub-page BARs
> to guest, which can help to improve IO performance for some devices.
> 
> In this patch, we expand MemoryRegions of these sub-page
> MMIO BARs to PAGE_SIZE in vfio_pci_write_config(), so that
> the BARs could be passed to KVM ioctl KVM_SET_USER_MEMORY_REGION
> with a valid size. The expanding size will be recovered when
> the base address of sub-page BAR is changed and not page aligned
> any more in guest. And we also set the priority of these BARs'
> memory regions to zero in case of overlap with BARs which share
> the same page with sub-page BARs in guest.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Yongji Xie <xyjxie@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
>  hw/vfio/common.c |    3 +--
>  hw/vfio/pci.c    |   76 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 77 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Hi Yongji,

There was an automated patch checker reply to this patch already, see:

https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9275077/

Looks like there's a trivial whitespace issue with using a tab.  Also
another QEMU style issue noted below.

> 
> diff --git a/hw/vfio/common.c b/hw/vfio/common.c
> index b313e7c..1a70307 100644
> --- a/hw/vfio/common.c
> +++ b/hw/vfio/common.c
> @@ -661,8 +661,7 @@ int vfio_region_setup(Object *obj, VFIODevice *vbasedev, VFIORegion *region,
>                                region, name, region->size);
>  
>          if (!vbasedev->no_mmap &&
> -            region->flags & VFIO_REGION_INFO_FLAG_MMAP &&
> -            !(region->size & ~qemu_real_host_page_mask)) {
> +            region->flags & VFIO_REGION_INFO_FLAG_MMAP) {
>  
>              vfio_setup_region_sparse_mmaps(region, info);
>  
> diff --git a/hw/vfio/pci.c b/hw/vfio/pci.c
> index 7bfa17c..7035617 100644
> --- a/hw/vfio/pci.c
> +++ b/hw/vfio/pci.c
> @@ -1057,6 +1057,65 @@ static const MemoryRegionOps vfio_vga_ops = {
>  };
>  
>  /*
> + * Expand memory region of sub-page(size < PAGE_SIZE) MMIO BAR to page
> + * size if the BAR is in an exclusive page in host so that we could map
> + * this BAR to guest. But this sub-page BAR may not occupy an exclusive
> + * page in guest. So we should set the priority of the expanded memory
> + * region to zero in case of overlap with BARs which share the same page
> + * with the sub-page BAR in guest. Besides, we should also recover the
> + * size of this sub-page BAR when its base address is changed in guest
> + * and not page aligned any more.
> + */
> +static void vfio_sub_page_bar_update_mapping(PCIDevice *pdev, int bar)
> +{
> +    VFIOPCIDevice *vdev = DO_UPCAST(VFIOPCIDevice, pdev, pdev);
> +    VFIORegion *region = &vdev->bars[bar].region;
> +    MemoryRegion *mmap_mr, *mr;
> +    PCIIORegion *r;
> +    pcibus_t bar_addr;
> +
> +    /* Make sure that the whole region is allowed to be mmapped */
> +    if (!(region->nr_mmaps == 1 &&
> +        region->mmaps[0].size == region->size)) {
> +        return;
> +    }
> +
> +    r = &pdev->io_regions[bar];
> +    bar_addr = r->addr;
> +    if (bar_addr == PCI_BAR_UNMAPPED) {
> +        return;
> +    }
> +
> +    mr = region->mem;
> +    mmap_mr = &region->mmaps[0].mem;
> +    memory_region_transaction_begin();
> +    if (memory_region_size(mr) < qemu_real_host_page_size) {
> +        if (!(bar_addr & ~qemu_real_host_page_mask) &&
> +            memory_region_is_mapped(mr) && region->mmaps[0].mmap) {
> +            /* Expand memory region to page size and set priority */
> +            memory_region_del_subregion(r->address_space, mr);
> +            memory_region_set_size(mr, qemu_real_host_page_size);
> +            memory_region_set_size(mmap_mr, qemu_real_host_page_size);
> +            memory_region_add_subregion_overlap(r->address_space,
> +                                                bar_addr, mr, 0);
> +	}
> +    } else {
> +        /* This case would happen when guest rescan one PCI device */
> +        if (bar_addr & ~qemu_real_host_page_mask) {
> +            /* Recover the size of memory region */
> +            memory_region_set_size(mr, r->size);
> +            memory_region_set_size(mmap_mr, r->size);
> +        } else if (memory_region_is_mapped(mr)) {
> +            /* Set the priority of memory region to zero */
> +            memory_region_del_subregion(r->address_space, mr);
> +            memory_region_add_subregion_overlap(r->address_space,
> +                                                bar_addr, mr, 0);
> +        }
> +    }
> +    memory_region_transaction_commit();

Paolo, as the reigning memory API expert, do you see any issues with
this?  Expanding the size of a container MemoryRegion and the contained
mmap'd subregion and manipulating priorities so that we don't interfere
with other MemoryRegions.

> +}
> +
> +/*
>   * PCI config space
>   */
>  uint32_t vfio_pci_read_config(PCIDevice *pdev, uint32_t addr, int len)
> @@ -1139,6 +1198,23 @@ void vfio_pci_write_config(PCIDevice *pdev,
>          } else if (was_enabled && !is_enabled) {
>              vfio_msix_disable(vdev);
>          }
> +    } else if (ranges_overlap(addr, len, PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_0, 24) ||
> +        range_covers_byte(addr, len, PCI_COMMAND)) {
> +        pcibus_t old_addr[PCI_NUM_REGIONS - 1];
> +        int bar;
> +
> +        for (bar = 0; bar < PCI_ROM_SLOT; bar++) {
> +            old_addr[bar] = pdev->io_regions[bar].addr;
> +        }
> +
> +        pci_default_write_config(pdev, addr, val, len);
> +
> +        for (bar = 0; bar < PCI_ROM_SLOT; bar++) {
> +            if (old_addr[bar] != pdev->io_regions[bar].addr &&
> +                pdev->io_regions[bar].size > 0 &&
> +                pdev->io_regions[bar].size < qemu_real_host_page_size)

This requires {} per QEMU coding standards.

> +                vfio_sub_page_bar_update_mapping(pdev, bar);
> +        }
>      } else {
>          /* Write everything to QEMU to keep emulated bits correct */
>          pci_default_write_config(pdev, addr, val, len);

Thanks,
Alex

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] vfio: Add support for mmapping sub-page MMIO BARs
  2016-09-13 22:55 ` Alex Williamson
@ 2016-09-14  5:04   ` Yongji Xie
  2016-09-30 16:05   ` Paolo Bonzini
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Yongji Xie @ 2016-09-14  5:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Alex Williamson; +Cc: aik, zhong, qemu-devel, kvm, gwshan, Paolo Bonzini

On 2016/9/14 6:55, Alex Williamson wrote:

> [cc +Paolo]
>
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 19:05:57 +0800
> Yongji Xie <xyjxie@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> Now the kernel commit 05f0c03fbac1 ("vfio-pci: Allow to mmap
>> sub-page MMIO BARs if the mmio page is exclusive") allows VFIO
>> to mmap sub-page BARs. This is the corresponding QEMU patch.
>> With those patches applied, we could passthrough sub-page BARs
>> to guest, which can help to improve IO performance for some devices.
>>
>> In this patch, we expand MemoryRegions of these sub-page
>> MMIO BARs to PAGE_SIZE in vfio_pci_write_config(), so that
>> the BARs could be passed to KVM ioctl KVM_SET_USER_MEMORY_REGION
>> with a valid size. The expanding size will be recovered when
>> the base address of sub-page BAR is changed and not page aligned
>> any more in guest. And we also set the priority of these BARs'
>> memory regions to zero in case of overlap with BARs which share
>> the same page with sub-page BARs in guest.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yongji Xie <xyjxie@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>   hw/vfio/common.c |    3 +--
>>   hw/vfio/pci.c    |   76 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   2 files changed, 77 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> Hi Yongji,
>
> There was an automated patch checker reply to this patch already, see:
>
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9275077/
>
> Looks like there's a trivial whitespace issue with using a tab.  Also
> another QEMU style issue noted below.

Yes,  I saw it. I'll fix it in next version. Thanks for your remind.

>> diff --git a/hw/vfio/common.c b/hw/vfio/common.c
>> index b313e7c..1a70307 100644
>> --- a/hw/vfio/common.c
>> +++ b/hw/vfio/common.c
>> @@ -661,8 +661,7 @@ int vfio_region_setup(Object *obj, VFIODevice *vbasedev, VFIORegion *region,
>>                                 region, name, region->size);
>>   
>>           if (!vbasedev->no_mmap &&
>> -            region->flags & VFIO_REGION_INFO_FLAG_MMAP &&
>> -            !(region->size & ~qemu_real_host_page_mask)) {
>> +            region->flags & VFIO_REGION_INFO_FLAG_MMAP) {
>>   
>>               vfio_setup_region_sparse_mmaps(region, info);
>>   
>> diff --git a/hw/vfio/pci.c b/hw/vfio/pci.c
>> index 7bfa17c..7035617 100644
>> --- a/hw/vfio/pci.c
>> +++ b/hw/vfio/pci.c
>> @@ -1057,6 +1057,65 @@ static const MemoryRegionOps vfio_vga_ops = {
>>   };
>>   
>>   /*
>> + * Expand memory region of sub-page(size < PAGE_SIZE) MMIO BAR to page
>> + * size if the BAR is in an exclusive page in host so that we could map
>> + * this BAR to guest. But this sub-page BAR may not occupy an exclusive
>> + * page in guest. So we should set the priority of the expanded memory
>> + * region to zero in case of overlap with BARs which share the same page
>> + * with the sub-page BAR in guest. Besides, we should also recover the
>> + * size of this sub-page BAR when its base address is changed in guest
>> + * and not page aligned any more.
>> + */
>> +static void vfio_sub_page_bar_update_mapping(PCIDevice *pdev, int bar)
>> +{
>> +    VFIOPCIDevice *vdev = DO_UPCAST(VFIOPCIDevice, pdev, pdev);
>> +    VFIORegion *region = &vdev->bars[bar].region;
>> +    MemoryRegion *mmap_mr, *mr;
>> +    PCIIORegion *r;
>> +    pcibus_t bar_addr;
>> +
>> +    /* Make sure that the whole region is allowed to be mmapped */
>> +    if (!(region->nr_mmaps == 1 &&
>> +        region->mmaps[0].size == region->size)) {
>> +        return;
>> +    }
>> +
>> +    r = &pdev->io_regions[bar];
>> +    bar_addr = r->addr;
>> +    if (bar_addr == PCI_BAR_UNMAPPED) {
>> +        return;
>> +    }
>> +
>> +    mr = region->mem;
>> +    mmap_mr = &region->mmaps[0].mem;
>> +    memory_region_transaction_begin();
>> +    if (memory_region_size(mr) < qemu_real_host_page_size) {
>> +        if (!(bar_addr & ~qemu_real_host_page_mask) &&
>> +            memory_region_is_mapped(mr) && region->mmaps[0].mmap) {
>> +            /* Expand memory region to page size and set priority */
>> +            memory_region_del_subregion(r->address_space, mr);
>> +            memory_region_set_size(mr, qemu_real_host_page_size);
>> +            memory_region_set_size(mmap_mr, qemu_real_host_page_size);
>> +            memory_region_add_subregion_overlap(r->address_space,
>> +                                                bar_addr, mr, 0);
>> +	}
>> +    } else {
>> +        /* This case would happen when guest rescan one PCI device */
>> +        if (bar_addr & ~qemu_real_host_page_mask) {
>> +            /* Recover the size of memory region */
>> +            memory_region_set_size(mr, r->size);
>> +            memory_region_set_size(mmap_mr, r->size);
>> +        } else if (memory_region_is_mapped(mr)) {
>> +            /* Set the priority of memory region to zero */
>> +            memory_region_del_subregion(r->address_space, mr);
>> +            memory_region_add_subregion_overlap(r->address_space,
>> +                                                bar_addr, mr, 0);
>> +        }
>> +    }
>> +    memory_region_transaction_commit();
> Paolo, as the reigning memory API expert, do you see any issues with
> this?  Expanding the size of a container MemoryRegion and the contained
> mmap'd subregion and manipulating priorities so that we don't interfere
> with other MemoryRegions.
>
>> +}
>> +
>> +/*
>>    * PCI config space
>>    */
>>   uint32_t vfio_pci_read_config(PCIDevice *pdev, uint32_t addr, int len)
>> @@ -1139,6 +1198,23 @@ void vfio_pci_write_config(PCIDevice *pdev,
>>           } else if (was_enabled && !is_enabled) {
>>               vfio_msix_disable(vdev);
>>           }
>> +    } else if (ranges_overlap(addr, len, PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_0, 24) ||
>> +        range_covers_byte(addr, len, PCI_COMMAND)) {
>> +        pcibus_t old_addr[PCI_NUM_REGIONS - 1];
>> +        int bar;
>> +
>> +        for (bar = 0; bar < PCI_ROM_SLOT; bar++) {
>> +            old_addr[bar] = pdev->io_regions[bar].addr;
>> +        }
>> +
>> +        pci_default_write_config(pdev, addr, val, len);
>> +
>> +        for (bar = 0; bar < PCI_ROM_SLOT; bar++) {
>> +            if (old_addr[bar] != pdev->io_regions[bar].addr &&
>> +                pdev->io_regions[bar].size > 0 &&
>> +                pdev->io_regions[bar].size < qemu_real_host_page_size)
> This requires {} per QEMU coding standards.

Will do.

Thanks,
Yongji


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] vfio: Add support for mmapping sub-page MMIO BARs
  2016-09-13 22:55 ` Alex Williamson
  2016-09-14  5:04   ` Yongji Xie
@ 2016-09-30 16:05   ` Paolo Bonzini
  2016-10-04  6:57     ` Yongji Xie
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Paolo Bonzini @ 2016-09-30 16:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Alex Williamson, Yongji Xie; +Cc: aik, zhong, qemu-devel, kvm, gwshan



On 14/09/2016 00:55, Alex Williamson wrote:
> Paolo, as the reigning memory API expert, do you see any issues with
> this?  Expanding the size of a container MemoryRegion and the contained
> mmap'd subregion and manipulating priorities so that we don't interfere
> with other MemoryRegions.

I guess it's fine if you are okay with maintaining it.
memory_region_set_size exists, might as well use it. :)

What I'm worried about, is what happens if two such regions end up in
the same guest page.  Then the two priorities conflict.

Paolo

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] vfio: Add support for mmapping sub-page MMIO BARs
  2016-09-30 16:05   ` Paolo Bonzini
@ 2016-10-04  6:57     ` Yongji Xie
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Yongji Xie @ 2016-10-04  6:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Paolo Bonzini, Alex Williamson; +Cc: aik, zhong, qemu-devel, kvm, gwshan

On 2016/10/1 0:05, Paolo Bonzini wrote:

> On 14/09/2016 00:55, Alex Williamson wrote:
>> Paolo, as the reigning memory API expert, do you see any issues with
>> this?  Expanding the size of a container MemoryRegion and the contained
>> mmap'd subregion and manipulating priorities so that we don't interfere
>> with other MemoryRegions.
> I guess it's fine if you are okay with maintaining it.
> memory_region_set_size exists, might as well use it. :)
>
> What I'm worried about, is what happens if two such regions end up in
> the same guest page.  Then the two priorities conflict.
>

Hi Paolo,

I think I can answer this question. We would expand only one MemoryRegion
which is page aligned and set its priority to zero if we have two region 
in the same
guest page. Then the Memory Region with higher priority will overlap the 
expanded
part of page aligned one as if we didn't do the expanding.

Thanks,
Yongji


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] vfio: Add support for mmapping sub-page MMIO BARs
  2016-09-30  4:00 Thorsten Kohfeldt
@ 2016-09-30 15:07 ` Alex Williamson
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Alex Williamson @ 2016-09-30 15:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Thorsten Kohfeldt; +Cc: xyjxie, Paolo Bonzini, qemu-devel

On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 06:00:42 +0200
Thorsten Kohfeldt <thorsten.kohfeldt@gmx.de> wrote:

> (Re-post, as my mail client somehow made my previous post attach to the wrong thread.
> I do not mean to spam y'all, but maybe my previous mail got lost in your filters ...
> ... as I have not yet seen any answer to my questions/remarks.
> )

Hi Thorsten,

I saw your message and I even spent part of a day looking again at the
rtl quirk (I think there's still a bug in it), but you still haven't
proven to me that there's an issue with quirks splitting pages.  On my
device BAR2 is 4k and the quirk covers 8 bytes, a dword at 0x70 and
another at 0x74.  I assign it to the guest and I use a test program to
mmap the pci-sysfs resource2 file to dump it from guest userspace.  It
works.  If I use gdb on QEMU, I see that 0x70 and 0x74 are handled via
the quirk functions and the remainder come from the mmap via the cpu
physical rw functions.

One interesting thing I found is that dumping the range from the
monitor doesn't work because the memcpy it uses does greater than dword
accesses and the device doesn't appear to support that, even on bare
metal.  So actually if we disable the mmap, a dump does work because
those accesses are broken into dword chunks.

However, I don't see what you're referring to with the quirk somehow
breaking access to the rest of the BAR.  Yes, it does prevent the
entire BAR from being mapped directly into the guest address space, it
will trap into QEMU, but that trapping works as intended AFAICT.  This
should behave the same way.  Please provide a test that explicitly
shows how accesses on the same page as a quirk are serviced
improperly.  Thanks,

Alex

>  > On 2016/9/14 6:55, Alex Williamson wrote:
>  >
>  > [cc +Paolo]
>  >  
>  >> On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 19:05:57 +0800
>  >> Yongji Xie <address@hidden> wrote:
>  >>
>  >> Now the kernel commit 05f0c03fbac1 ("vfio-pci: Allow to mmap
>  >> sub-page MMIO BARs if the mmio page is exclusive") allows VFIO
>  >> to mmap sub-page BARs. This is the corresponding QEMU patch.  
> 
> Immediate questions first:
> It seems that mentioned commit will be part of Kernel 4.8 ?
> But as far as I can judge this change should also cooperate with
> older/existing kernels (which then just have qemu behave as before) ?
> 
> (For my actual point of interrest related to this patch please see further down.)
> 
>  >> With those patches applied, we could passthrough sub-page BARs
>  >> to guest, which can help to improve IO performance for some devices.
>  >>
>  >> In this patch, we expand MemoryRegions of these sub-page
>  >> MMIO BARs to PAGE_SIZE in vfio_pci_write_config(), so that
>  >> the BARs could be passed to KVM ioctl KVM_SET_USER_MEMORY_REGION
>  >> with a valid size. The expanding size will be recovered when
>  >> the base address of sub-page BAR is changed and not page aligned
>  >> any more in guest. And we also set the priority of these BARs'
>  >> memory regions to zero in case of overlap with BARs which share
>  >> the same page with sub-page BARs in guest.
>  >>
>  >> Signed-off-by: Yongji Xie <address@hidden>
>  >> ---
>  >> hw/vfio/common.c |    3 +--
>  >> hw/vfio/pci.c    |   76 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  >> 2 files changed, 77 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)  
>  >
>  > Hi Yongji,  
> ...
>  >> +    mr = region->mem;
>  >> +    mmap_mr = &region->mmaps[0].mem;
>  >> +    memory_region_transaction_begin();
>  >> +    if (memory_region_size(mr) < qemu_real_host_page_size) {
>  >> +        if (!(bar_addr & ~qemu_real_host_page_mask) &&
>  >> +            memory_region_is_mapped(mr) && region->mmaps[0].mmap) {
>  >> +            /* Expand memory region to page size and set priority */
>  >> +            memory_region_del_subregion(r->address_space, mr);
>  >> +            memory_region_set_size(mr, qemu_real_host_page_size);
>  >> +            memory_region_set_size(mmap_mr, qemu_real_host_page_size);
>  >> +            memory_region_add_subregion_overlap(r->address_space,
>  >> +                                                bar_addr, mr, 0);
>  >> +       }
>  >> +    } else {
>  >> +        /* This case would happen when guest rescan one PCI device */
>  >> +        if (bar_addr & ~qemu_real_host_page_mask) {
>  >> +            /* Recover the size of memory region */
>  >> +            memory_region_set_size(mr, r->size);
>  >> +            memory_region_set_size(mmap_mr, r->size);
>  >> +        } else if (memory_region_is_mapped(mr)) {
>  >> +            /* Set the priority of memory region to zero */
>  >> +            memory_region_del_subregion(r->address_space, mr);
>  >> +            memory_region_add_subregion_overlap(r->address_space,
>  >> +                                                bar_addr, mr, 0);
>  >> +        }
>  >> +    }
>  >> +    memory_region_transaction_commit();  
>  >
>  > Paolo, as the reigning memory API expert, do you see any issues with
>  > this?  Expanding the size of a container MemoryRegion and the contained
>  > mmap'd subregion and manipulating priorities so that we don't interfere
>  > with other MemoryRegions.  
> 
> Since the following qemu commit function memory_region_add_subregion_overlap()
> actually has a misleading name:
> http://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu.git;a=blobdiff;f=memory.c;h=ac5236b51587ee397edd177502fc20ce159f2235;hp=9daac5ea2d9a9c83533880a812760683f6e09765;hb=b61359781958759317ee6fd1a45b59be0b7dbbe1;hpb=ab0a99560857302b60053c245d1231acbd976cd4
> 
> The sole thing that memory_region_add_subregion_overlap() now actually does
> differently from memory_region_add_subregion() is nothing else than setting
> the region's priority to a value of callers choice.
> The _default_ priority as chosen by memory_region_add_subregion() _is_ 0.
> 
> So, explicitly choosing memory_region_add_subregion_overlap(... , 0) does
> nothing new.
> Or does it:
> Actually, _yes_, because I see Alex actually willing to discuss choice
> of memory region priorities related to VFIO and mmap.
> Why do I "invade" this thread ?
> I would like you to consider thinking twice about selecting proper priorities
> for _any_ mmap related region (i.e. also the aligned case), and here is why:
> (I will also make a statement related to region expansion for alignment.)
> 
> First of all, I recently suggested a patch which can visualise what I
> write about subsequently:
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2016-09/msg01315.html
> (I would appreciate if somebody would review and thus get it merged.)
> 
> As a general remark, the sub-page mmap case does not only occur when
> a 'small' BAR is encountered, it also occurs when a fully mmap-ed
> page is split by a 'small' VFIO quirk.
> Hi Alex, here we go again about RTL8168 and its MSIX quirk.
> (Subsequently I also relate to/conclude for Yongji's patch.)
> Mentioned quirk cuts for certain RTL8168 models a full-page BAR
> right into 3 pieces, 0..qirkaddr-1, quirk and quirk+qsize..pagesize-1.
> What I found is that both "mmap-fractions" behave _buggy_.
> (Attempt of an analysis subsequently.)
> Here the first piece could be covered by Yongji's patch, but the third
> piece certainly not, as the kernel patch is limited to aligned small pieces.
> And that only starting with kernel 4.8.
> 
> This is what we also need to solve and where above priority choice
> is coming into play (but there's more to consider):
> Right after memory_region_transaction_commit() a new flat view is created.
> As documented in docs/memory.txt, priorities _are_ important for the final
> 'stuff' which is exposed in the flat view in a certain address range.
> _But_ - priorities are not the only important property.
> So priorities need to fit into a larger picture.
> (Here I refer again to my suggested mtree info <mapinfo> patch.)
> 
> Complexity of the situation besides watching your priorities:
> As far as I understand the mmap functionality is 2-phased, there is the
> mmap system call, which Yongji's patch is tuning around, and then the
> setup of the actual dma, which happens for sections of the flat view
> in function hw/vfio/common.c/vfio_dma_map() via an ioctl on the container
> file descriptor.
> vfio_dma_map() is called from hw/vfio/common.c/vfio_iommu_map_notify()
> _and_ hw/vfio/common.c/vfio_listener_region_add() (for mmap flat ranges).
> There be dragons -
> vfio_dma_map() is _skipped_ for ranges which are _not_ fully page aligned
> (there may be exceptions, but the buggy behavior is triggered by a
> skip-case currently occurring for the quirk split pieces mentioned above).
> This would also happen for non-page-extended page-aligned sub-page BARs,
> I suppose.
> Why is this skip-and-forget 'dangerous' ?
> Well, on the one hand memory.txt rules specify which mmap region is
> actually exposed in the flat range and thus fed into the skip-happy
> function vfio_listener_region_add() (I do not understand enough about
> vfio_iommu_map_notify(), so I disregard that one here for now).
> On the other hand, those regions that are dma-skipped do not seem to
> safely fallback to the 'slow' region-ops/memory-handlers.
> This is certainly also due to rules specified in memory.txt,
> be those either implemented correctly, but not correctly employed by
> well adjusted subregion-stacking or even by a buggy implementation of
> those stacking rules.
> End of last year I was able to 'fix' the RTL8168 MSIX quirk problem
> by adding an additional subregion (one page in size, referring to the
> page sized quirk split BAR), which re-exposed the required region-ops
> for the slow path.
> Back then Alex called that a hack, but still:
> I assume, sub-page BARs which are the subject of Yongji's patch will
> also be subject of the correct-stacking-problem and thus, just picking
> a seemingly well edjucated priority for a page-extended BAR-region
> might 'endanger' the extended page-fraction's slow-path/region-ops.
> 
> Conclusion
> _This_ patch probably needs an additional page sized region added
> right at the correct position of the subregion 'stack' in order to
> be able to 'create-and-forget' to be prepared for all different
> additional subregion add-ons, potentially by yet unknown quirks.
> 
> And while we're at it, we can also fix the RTL8168 MSIX quirk using
> the same precautional add-a-helper-region approach.
> 
> I have a few patch snippets in store since start of this year to
> roughly address the dma-skip problem (still need refinement).
> Anybody interrested in starting to discuss those ?
> 
> In order to test/verify/visualise I suggest again
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2016-09/msg04808.html
> (I would really appreciate a review, refine and merge.)
> 
> And maybe we should even add a refactoring patch for the purpose of
> renaming memory_region_add_subregion_overlap() to
> memory_region_add_subregion_stacked() or
> memory_region_add_subregion_prioritised() or similar.
> 
> Regards, Thorsten

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] vfio: Add support for mmapping sub-page MMIO BARs
@ 2016-09-30  4:00 Thorsten Kohfeldt
  2016-09-30 15:07 ` Alex Williamson
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Thorsten Kohfeldt @ 2016-09-30  4:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: xyjxie, Alex Williamson, Paolo Bonzini; +Cc: qemu-devel


(Re-post, as my mail client somehow made my previous post attach to the wrong thread.
I do not mean to spam y'all, but maybe my previous mail got lost in your filters ...
... as I have not yet seen any answer to my questions/remarks.
)

 > On 2016/9/14 6:55, Alex Williamson wrote:
 >
 > [cc +Paolo]
 >
 >> On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 19:05:57 +0800
 >> Yongji Xie <address@hidden> wrote:
 >>
 >> Now the kernel commit 05f0c03fbac1 ("vfio-pci: Allow to mmap
 >> sub-page MMIO BARs if the mmio page is exclusive") allows VFIO
 >> to mmap sub-page BARs. This is the corresponding QEMU patch.

Immediate questions first:
It seems that mentioned commit will be part of Kernel 4.8 ?
But as far as I can judge this change should also cooperate with
older/existing kernels (which then just have qemu behave as before) ?

(For my actual point of interrest related to this patch please see further down.)

 >> With those patches applied, we could passthrough sub-page BARs
 >> to guest, which can help to improve IO performance for some devices.
 >>
 >> In this patch, we expand MemoryRegions of these sub-page
 >> MMIO BARs to PAGE_SIZE in vfio_pci_write_config(), so that
 >> the BARs could be passed to KVM ioctl KVM_SET_USER_MEMORY_REGION
 >> with a valid size. The expanding size will be recovered when
 >> the base address of sub-page BAR is changed and not page aligned
 >> any more in guest. And we also set the priority of these BARs'
 >> memory regions to zero in case of overlap with BARs which share
 >> the same page with sub-page BARs in guest.
 >>
 >> Signed-off-by: Yongji Xie <address@hidden>
 >> ---
 >> hw/vfio/common.c |    3 +--
 >> hw/vfio/pci.c    |   76 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 >> 2 files changed, 77 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
 >
 > Hi Yongji,
...
 >> +    mr = region->mem;
 >> +    mmap_mr = &region->mmaps[0].mem;
 >> +    memory_region_transaction_begin();
 >> +    if (memory_region_size(mr) < qemu_real_host_page_size) {
 >> +        if (!(bar_addr & ~qemu_real_host_page_mask) &&
 >> +            memory_region_is_mapped(mr) && region->mmaps[0].mmap) {
 >> +            /* Expand memory region to page size and set priority */
 >> +            memory_region_del_subregion(r->address_space, mr);
 >> +            memory_region_set_size(mr, qemu_real_host_page_size);
 >> +            memory_region_set_size(mmap_mr, qemu_real_host_page_size);
 >> +            memory_region_add_subregion_overlap(r->address_space,
 >> +                                                bar_addr, mr, 0);
 >> +       }
 >> +    } else {
 >> +        /* This case would happen when guest rescan one PCI device */
 >> +        if (bar_addr & ~qemu_real_host_page_mask) {
 >> +            /* Recover the size of memory region */
 >> +            memory_region_set_size(mr, r->size);
 >> +            memory_region_set_size(mmap_mr, r->size);
 >> +        } else if (memory_region_is_mapped(mr)) {
 >> +            /* Set the priority of memory region to zero */
 >> +            memory_region_del_subregion(r->address_space, mr);
 >> +            memory_region_add_subregion_overlap(r->address_space,
 >> +                                                bar_addr, mr, 0);
 >> +        }
 >> +    }
 >> +    memory_region_transaction_commit();
 >
 > Paolo, as the reigning memory API expert, do you see any issues with
 > this?  Expanding the size of a container MemoryRegion and the contained
 > mmap'd subregion and manipulating priorities so that we don't interfere
 > with other MemoryRegions.

Since the following qemu commit function memory_region_add_subregion_overlap()
actually has a misleading name:
http://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu.git;a=blobdiff;f=memory.c;h=ac5236b51587ee397edd177502fc20ce159f2235;hp=9daac5ea2d9a9c83533880a812760683f6e09765;hb=b61359781958759317ee6fd1a45b59be0b7dbbe1;hpb=ab0a99560857302b60053c245d1231acbd976cd4

The sole thing that memory_region_add_subregion_overlap() now actually does
differently from memory_region_add_subregion() is nothing else than setting
the region's priority to a value of callers choice.
The _default_ priority as chosen by memory_region_add_subregion() _is_ 0.

So, explicitly choosing memory_region_add_subregion_overlap(... , 0) does
nothing new.
Or does it:
Actually, _yes_, because I see Alex actually willing to discuss choice
of memory region priorities related to VFIO and mmap.
Why do I "invade" this thread ?
I would like you to consider thinking twice about selecting proper priorities
for _any_ mmap related region (i.e. also the aligned case), and here is why:
(I will also make a statement related to region expansion for alignment.)

First of all, I recently suggested a patch which can visualise what I
write about subsequently:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2016-09/msg01315.html
(I would appreciate if somebody would review and thus get it merged.)

As a general remark, the sub-page mmap case does not only occur when
a 'small' BAR is encountered, it also occurs when a fully mmap-ed
page is split by a 'small' VFIO quirk.
Hi Alex, here we go again about RTL8168 and its MSIX quirk.
(Subsequently I also relate to/conclude for Yongji's patch.)
Mentioned quirk cuts for certain RTL8168 models a full-page BAR
right into 3 pieces, 0..qirkaddr-1, quirk and quirk+qsize..pagesize-1.
What I found is that both "mmap-fractions" behave _buggy_.
(Attempt of an analysis subsequently.)
Here the first piece could be covered by Yongji's patch, but the third
piece certainly not, as the kernel patch is limited to aligned small pieces.
And that only starting with kernel 4.8.

This is what we also need to solve and where above priority choice
is coming into play (but there's more to consider):
Right after memory_region_transaction_commit() a new flat view is created.
As documented in docs/memory.txt, priorities _are_ important for the final
'stuff' which is exposed in the flat view in a certain address range.
_But_ - priorities are not the only important property.
So priorities need to fit into a larger picture.
(Here I refer again to my suggested mtree info <mapinfo> patch.)

Complexity of the situation besides watching your priorities:
As far as I understand the mmap functionality is 2-phased, there is the
mmap system call, which Yongji's patch is tuning around, and then the
setup of the actual dma, which happens for sections of the flat view
in function hw/vfio/common.c/vfio_dma_map() via an ioctl on the container
file descriptor.
vfio_dma_map() is called from hw/vfio/common.c/vfio_iommu_map_notify()
_and_ hw/vfio/common.c/vfio_listener_region_add() (for mmap flat ranges).
There be dragons -
vfio_dma_map() is _skipped_ for ranges which are _not_ fully page aligned
(there may be exceptions, but the buggy behavior is triggered by a
skip-case currently occurring for the quirk split pieces mentioned above).
This would also happen for non-page-extended page-aligned sub-page BARs,
I suppose.
Why is this skip-and-forget 'dangerous' ?
Well, on the one hand memory.txt rules specify which mmap region is
actually exposed in the flat range and thus fed into the skip-happy
function vfio_listener_region_add() (I do not understand enough about
vfio_iommu_map_notify(), so I disregard that one here for now).
On the other hand, those regions that are dma-skipped do not seem to
safely fallback to the 'slow' region-ops/memory-handlers.
This is certainly also due to rules specified in memory.txt,
be those either implemented correctly, but not correctly employed by
well adjusted subregion-stacking or even by a buggy implementation of
those stacking rules.
End of last year I was able to 'fix' the RTL8168 MSIX quirk problem
by adding an additional subregion (one page in size, referring to the
page sized quirk split BAR), which re-exposed the required region-ops
for the slow path.
Back then Alex called that a hack, but still:
I assume, sub-page BARs which are the subject of Yongji's patch will
also be subject of the correct-stacking-problem and thus, just picking
a seemingly well edjucated priority for a page-extended BAR-region
might 'endanger' the extended page-fraction's slow-path/region-ops.

Conclusion
_This_ patch probably needs an additional page sized region added
right at the correct position of the subregion 'stack' in order to
be able to 'create-and-forget' to be prepared for all different
additional subregion add-ons, potentially by yet unknown quirks.

And while we're at it, we can also fix the RTL8168 MSIX quirk using
the same precautional add-a-helper-region approach.

I have a few patch snippets in store since start of this year to
roughly address the dma-skip problem (still need refinement).
Anybody interrested in starting to discuss those ?

In order to test/verify/visualise I suggest again
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2016-09/msg04808.html
(I would really appreciate a review, refine and merge.)

And maybe we should even add a refactoring patch for the purpose of
renaming memory_region_add_subregion_overlap() to
memory_region_add_subregion_stacked() or
memory_region_add_subregion_prioritised() or similar.

Regards, Thorsten

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] vfio: Add support for mmapping sub-page MMIO BARs
  2016-09-20  0:51     ` Laszlo Ersek
@ 2016-09-22 19:43       ` Thorsten Kohfeldt
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Thorsten Kohfeldt @ 2016-09-22 19:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Laszlo Ersek, Paolo Bonzini, armbru, lcapitulino,
	alex.williamson, peter.maydell
  Cc: qemu-devel


 > On 2016/9/14 6:55, Alex Williamson wrote:
 >
 > [cc +Paolo]
 >
 >> On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 19:05:57 +0800
 >> Yongji Xie <address@hidden> wrote:
 >>
 >> Now the kernel commit 05f0c03fbac1 ("vfio-pci: Allow to mmap
 >> sub-page MMIO BARs if the mmio page is exclusive") allows VFIO
 >> to mmap sub-page BARs. This is the corresponding QEMU patch.

Immediate questions first:
It seems that mentioned commit will be part of Kernel 4.8 ?
But as far as I can judge this change should also cooperate with
older/existing kernels (which then just have qemu behave as before) ?

(For my actual point of interrest related to this patch please see further down.)

 >> With those patches applied, we could passthrough sub-page BARs
 >> to guest, which can help to improve IO performance for some devices.
 >>
 >> In this patch, we expand MemoryRegions of these sub-page
 >> MMIO BARs to PAGE_SIZE in vfio_pci_write_config(), so that
 >> the BARs could be passed to KVM ioctl KVM_SET_USER_MEMORY_REGION
 >> with a valid size. The expanding size will be recovered when
 >> the base address of sub-page BAR is changed and not page aligned
 >> any more in guest. And we also set the priority of these BARs'
 >> memory regions to zero in case of overlap with BARs which share
 >> the same page with sub-page BARs in guest.
 >>
 >> Signed-off-by: Yongji Xie <address@hidden>
 >> ---
 >> hw/vfio/common.c |    3 +--
 >> hw/vfio/pci.c    |   76 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 >> 2 files changed, 77 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
 >
 > Hi Yongji,
...
 >> +    mr = region->mem;
 >> +    mmap_mr = &region->mmaps[0].mem;
 >> +    memory_region_transaction_begin();
 >> +    if (memory_region_size(mr) < qemu_real_host_page_size) {
 >> +        if (!(bar_addr & ~qemu_real_host_page_mask) &&
 >> +            memory_region_is_mapped(mr) && region->mmaps[0].mmap) {
 >> +            /* Expand memory region to page size and set priority */
 >> +            memory_region_del_subregion(r->address_space, mr);
 >> +            memory_region_set_size(mr, qemu_real_host_page_size);
 >> +            memory_region_set_size(mmap_mr, qemu_real_host_page_size);
 >> +            memory_region_add_subregion_overlap(r->address_space,
 >> +                                                bar_addr, mr, 0);
 >> +       }
 >> +    } else {
 >> +        /* This case would happen when guest rescan one PCI device */
 >> +        if (bar_addr & ~qemu_real_host_page_mask) {
 >> +            /* Recover the size of memory region */
 >> +            memory_region_set_size(mr, r->size);
 >> +            memory_region_set_size(mmap_mr, r->size);
 >> +        } else if (memory_region_is_mapped(mr)) {
 >> +            /* Set the priority of memory region to zero */
 >> +            memory_region_del_subregion(r->address_space, mr);
 >> +            memory_region_add_subregion_overlap(r->address_space,
 >> +                                                bar_addr, mr, 0);
 >> +        }
 >> +    }
 >> +    memory_region_transaction_commit();
 >
 > Paolo, as the reigning memory API expert, do you see any issues with
 > this?  Expanding the size of a container MemoryRegion and the contained
 > mmap'd subregion and manipulating priorities so that we don't interfere
 > with other MemoryRegions.

Since the following qemu commit function memory_region_add_subregion_overlap()
actually has a misleading name:
http://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu.git;a=blobdiff;f=memory.c;h=ac5236b51587ee397edd177502fc20ce159f2235;hp=9daac5ea2d9a9c83533880a812760683f6e09765;hb=b61359781958759317ee6fd1a45b59be0b7dbbe1;hpb=ab0a99560857302b60053c245d1231acbd976cd4

The sole thing that memory_region_add_subregion_overlap() now actually does
differently from memory_region_add_subregion() is nothing else than setting
the region's priority to a value of callers choice.
The _default_ priority as chosen by memory_region_add_subregion() _is_ 0.

So, explicitly choosing memory_region_add_subregion_overlap(... , 0) does
nothing new.
Or does it:
Actually, _yes_, because I see Alex actually willing to discuss choice
of memory region priorities related to VFIO and mmap.
Why do I "invade" this thread ?
I would like you to consider thinking twice about selecting proper priorities
for _any_ mmap related region (i.e. also the aligned case), and here is why:
(I will also make a statement related to region expansion for alignment.)

First of all, I recently suggested a patch which can visualise what I
write about subsequently:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2016-09/msg01315.html
(I would appreciate if somebody would review and thus get it merged.)

As a general remark, the sub-page mmap case does not only occur when
a 'small' BAR is encountered, it also occurs when a fully mmap-ed
page is split by a 'small' VFIO quirk.
Hi Alex, here we go again about RTL8168 and its MSIX quirk.
(Subsequently I also relate to/conclude for Yongji's patch.)
Mentioned quirk cuts for certain RTL8168 models a full-page BAR
right into 3 pieces, 0..qirkaddr-1, quirk and quirk+qsize..pagesize-1.
What I found is that both "mmap-fractions" behave _buggy_.
(Attempt of an analysis subsequently.)
Here the first piece could be covered by Yongji's patch, but the third
piece certainly not, as the kernel patch is limited to aligned small pieces.
And that only starting with kernel 4.8.

This is what we also need to solve and where above priority choice
is coming into play (but there's more to consider):
Right after memory_region_transaction_commit() a new flat view is created.
As documented in docs/memory.txt, priorities _are_ important for the final
'stuff' which is exposed in the flat view in a certain address range.
_But_ - priorities are not the only important property.
So priorities need to fit into a larger picture.
(Here I refer again to my suggested mtree info <mapinfo> patch.)

Complexity of the situation besides watching your priorities:
As far as I understand the mmap functionality is 2-phased, there is the
mmap system call, which Yongji's patch is tuning around, and then the
setup of the actual dma, which happens for sections of the flat view
in function hw/vfio/common.c/vfio_dma_map() via an ioctl on the container
file descriptor.
vfio_dma_map() is called from hw/vfio/common.c/vfio_iommu_map_notify()
_and_ hw/vfio/common.c/vfio_listener_region_add() (for mmap flat ranges).
There be dragons -
vfio_dma_map() is _skipped_ for ranges which are _not_ fully page aligned
(there may be exceptions, but the buggy behavior is triggered by a
skip-case currently occurring for the quirk split pieces mentioned above).
This would also happen for non-page-extended page-aligned sub-page BARs,
I suppose.
Why is this skip-and-forget 'dangerous' ?
Well, on the one hand memory.txt rules specify which mmap region is
actually exposed in the flat range and thus fed into the skip-happy
function vfio_listener_region_add() (I do not understand enough about
vfio_iommu_map_notify(), so I disregard that one here for now).
On the other hand, those regions that are dma-skipped do not seem to
safely fallback to the 'slow' region-ops/memory-handlers.
This is certainly also due to rules specified in memory.txt,
be those either implemented correctly, but not correctly employed by
well adjusted subregion-stacking or even by a buggy implementation of
those stacking rules.
End of last year I was able to 'fix' the RTL8168 MSIX quirk problem
by adding an additional subregion (one page in size, referring to the
page sized quirk split BAR), which re-exposed the required region-ops
for the slow path.
Back then Alex called that a hack, but still:
I assume, sub-page BARs which are the subject of Yongji's patch will
also be subject of the correct-stacking-problem and thus, just picking
a seemingly well edjucated priority for a page-extended BAR-region
might 'endanger' the extended page-fraction's slow-path/region-ops.

Conclusion
_This_ patch probably needs an additional page sized region added
right at the correct position of the subregion 'stack' in order to
be able to 'create-and-forget' to be prepared for all different
additional subregion add-ons, potentially by yet unknown quirks.

And while we're at it, we can also fix the RTL8168 MSIX quirk using
the same precautional add-a-helper-region approach.

I have a few patch snippets in store since start of this year to
roughly address the dma-skip problem (still need refinement).
Anybody interrested in starting to discuss those ?

In order to test/verify/visualise I suggest again
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2016-09/msg04808.html
(I would really appreciate a review, refine and merge.)

And maybe we should even add a refactoring patch for the purpose of
renaming memory_region_add_subregion_overlap() to
memory_region_add_subregion_stacked() or
memory_region_add_subregion_prioritised() or similar.

Regards, Thorsten

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2016-10-04  6:57 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-08-11 11:05 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] vfio: Add support for mmapping sub-page MMIO BARs Yongji Xie
2016-08-11 11:09 ` no-reply
2016-09-05 10:25 ` Yongji Xie
2016-09-13 22:55 ` Alex Williamson
2016-09-14  5:04   ` Yongji Xie
2016-09-30 16:05   ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-10-04  6:57     ` Yongji Xie
2016-09-07  0:48 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] hmp: Improve 'info mtree' with optional parm for mapinfo Thorsten Kohfeldt
2016-09-15  9:52 ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-09-20  0:16   ` Thorsten Kohfeldt
2016-09-20  0:51     ` Laszlo Ersek
2016-09-22 19:43       ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] vfio: Add support for mmapping sub-page MMIO BARs Thorsten Kohfeldt
2016-09-30  4:00 Thorsten Kohfeldt
2016-09-30 15:07 ` Alex Williamson

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.