Re: [RFC PATCH 29/30] vfio: Add support for Shared Virtual Memory - Jean-Philippe Brucker

From: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe.brucker@arm.com>
To: "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@intel.com>,
	Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
Cc: "Lan, Tianyu" <tianyu.lan@intel.com>,
	"Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
	Shanker Donthineni <shankerd@qti.qualcomm.com>,
	"kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
	Sinan Kaya <okaya@qti.qualcomm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
	Harv Abdulhamid <harba@qti.qualcomm.com>,
	"iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org"
	<iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
	"Pan, Jacob jun" <jacob.jun.pan@intel.com>,
	"linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@intel.com>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Nate Watterson <nwatters@qti.qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 29/30] vfio: Add support for Shared Virtual Memory
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 13:38:24 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <dfc76db2-0177-e67c-49cd-03f667b1589d@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <A2975661238FB949B60364EF0F2C257439021F4D@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com>

On 23/03/17 08:39, Liu, Yi L wrote:
> Hi Jean,
> 
> Thx for the excellent ideas. Pls refer to comments inline.
> 
> [...]
> 
>>> Hi Jean,
>>>
>>> I'm working on virtual SVM, and have some comments on the VFIO channel
>>> definition.
>>
>> Thanks a lot for the comments, this is quite interesting to me. I just have some
>> concerns about portability so I'm proposing a way to be slightly more generic below.
>>
> 
> yes, portability is what need to consider.
> 
> [...]
> 
>>>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h b/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h
>>>> index
>>>> 519eff362c1c..3fe4197a5ea0 100644
>>>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h
>>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h
>>>> @@ -198,6 +198,7 @@ struct vfio_device_info {
>>>>  #define VFIO_DEVICE_FLAGS_PCI	(1 << 1)	/* vfio-pci device */
>>>>  #define VFIO_DEVICE_FLAGS_PLATFORM (1 << 2)	/* vfio-platform device */
>>>>  #define VFIO_DEVICE_FLAGS_AMBA  (1 << 3)	/* vfio-amba device */
>>>> +#define VFIO_DEVICE_FLAGS_SVM	(1 << 4)	/* Device supports bind/unbind */
>>>>  	__u32	num_regions;	/* Max region index + 1 */
>>>>  	__u32	num_irqs;	/* Max IRQ index + 1 */
>>>>  };
>>>> @@ -409,6 +410,60 @@ struct vfio_irq_set {
>>>>   */
>>>>  #define VFIO_DEVICE_RESET		_IO(VFIO_TYPE, VFIO_BASE + 11)
>>>>
>>>> +struct vfio_device_svm {
>>>> +	__u32	argsz;
>>>> +	__u32	flags;
>>>> +#define VFIO_SVM_PASID_RELEASE_FLUSHED	(1 << 0)
>>>> +#define VFIO_SVM_PASID_RELEASE_CLEAN	(1 << 1)
>>>> +	__u32	pasid;
>>>> +};
>>>
>>> For virtual SVM work, the VFIO channel would be used to passdown guest
>>> PASID tale PTR and invalidation information. And may have further
>>> usage except the above.
>>>
>>> Here is the virtual SVM design doc which illustrates the VFIO usage.
>>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2016-11/msg05311.html
>>>
>>> For the guest PASID table ptr passdown, I've following message in pseudo code.
>>> struct pasid_table_info {
>>>         __u64 ptr;
>>>         __u32 size;
>>>  };
>>
>> There should probably be a way to specify the table format, so that the pIOMMU
>> driver can check that it recognizes the format used by the vIOMMU before attaching
>> it. This would allow to reuse the structure for other IOMMU architectures. If, for
>> instance, the host has an intel IOMMU and someone decides to emulate an ARM
>> SMMU with Qemu (their loss :), it can certainly use VFIO for passing-through devices
>> with MAP/UNMAP. But if Qemu then attempts to passdown a PASID table in SMMU
>> format, the Intel driver should have a way to reject it, as the SMMU format isn't
>> compatible.
> 
> Exactly, it would be grt if we can have the API defined as generic as MAP/UNMAP. The
> case you mentioned to emulate an ARM SMMU on an Intel platform is representative.
> For such cases, the problem is different vendors may have different PASID table format
> and also different page table format. In my understanding, these incompatible things
> may just result in failure if users try such emulation. What's your opinion here?
> Anyhow, better to listen to different voices.

Yes, in case the vIOMMU and pIOMMU implement different PASID table
formats, there is simply no way to virtualize SVM, the physical IOMMU will
fault when reading the foreign PASID table, since it won't find the pgd
pointers at the right location. Rejecting the bind gracefully seems much
preferable than letting the pIOMMU fault, so the vIOMMU can always use the
generic MAP/UNMAP API as a fallback.

>> I'm tackling a similar problem at the moment, but for passing a single page directory
>> instead of full PASID table to the IOMMU.
> 
> For, Intel IOMMU, passing the whole guest PASID table is enough and it also avoids 
> too much pgd passing. However, I'm open on this idea. You may just add a new flag
> in "struct vfio_device_svm" and pass the single pgd down to host.
> 
>>
>> So we need some kind of high-level classification that the vIOMMU must
>> communicate to the physical one. Each IOMMU flavor would get a unique, global
>> identifier, simply to make sure that vIOMMU and pIOMMU speak the same language.
>> For example:
>>
>> 0x65776886 "AMDV" AMD IOMMU
>> 0x73788476 "INTL" Intel IOMMU
>> 0x83515748 "S390" s390 IOMMU
>> 0x83777785 "SMMU" ARM SMMU
>> etc.
>>
>> It needs to be a global magic number that everyone can recognize. Could be as
>> simple as 32-bit numbers allocated from 0. Once we have a global magic number, we
>> can use it to differentiate architecture-specific details.
> 
> I may need to think more on this part.
>  
>> struct pasid_table_info {
>> 	__u64 ptr;
>> 	__u64 size;		/* Is it number of entry or size in
>> 				   bytes? */
> 
> For Intel platform, it's encoded. But I can make it in bytes. Here, I'd like
> to check with you if whole guest PASID info is also needed on ARM?

It will be needed on ARM if someone ever emulates the SMMU with SVM.
Though I'm not planning on doing that myself, it is unavoidable. And it
would be a shame for the next SVM virtualization solution to have to
introduce a new flag "VFIO_SVM_BIND_PASIDPT_2" if they could reuse most of
the BIND_PASIDPT interface but simply needed to add one or two
configuration fields specific to their IOMMU.

>>
>> 	__u32 model;		/* magic number */
>> 	__u32 variant;		/* version of the IOMMU architecture,
>> 				   maybe? IOMMU-specific. */
>> 	__u8 opaque[];		/* IOMMU-specific details */
>> };
>>
>> And then each IOMMU or page-table code can do low-level validation of the format,
>> by reading the details in 'opaque'. I assume that for Intel this would be empty. But
> 
> yes, for Intel, if the PASID ptr is in the definition, opaque would be empty.
> 
>> for instance on ARM SMMUv3, PASID table can have either one or two levels, and
>> vIOMMU would specify which one of the three available formats it is using.
> 
> Yes it is. PASID table could also be multi-level. I agree to have it into consideration.
> 
> 
>> struct pasid_table_info_smmu {
>> 	/*
>> 	 * In 'opaque', architecture details only the IOMMU driver should
>> 	 * be caring about.
>> 	 */
>> 	__u8 s1fmt;
>> 	__u8 s1dss;
>> }
>>
>> If the physical SMMU doesn't implement the particular PASID table format, it should
>> reject the bind.
> 
> So far, I think reject may be the best policy. I can't assume that different have consistent
> format for the PASID table and page table as previous comments.

Yes, for example AMD and Intel formats could be compatible, but the SMMU
format is quite different, using 64 bytes per PASID entry instead of 8 bytes.

>>
>> This would allow to keep architecture details outside of VFIO core (as well as virtio in
>> my case), and only have vIOMMU and pIOMMU understand those details.
>>
>>>
>>> For invalidation, I've following info in in pseudo code.
>>> struct iommu_svm_tlb_invalidate_info
>>> {
>>>        __u32 inv_type;
>>> #define IOTLB_INV			(1 << 0)
>>> #define EXTENDED_IOTLB_INV		(1 << 1)
>>> #define DEVICE_IOTLB_INV		(1 << 2)
>>> #define EXTENDED_DEVICE_IOTLB_INV	(1 << 3)
>>> #define PASID_CACHE_INV		(1 << 4)
>>>        __u32 pasid;
>>>        __u64 addr;
>>>        __u64 size;
>>>        __u8 granularity;
>>> #define DEFAULT_INV_GRN        0
>>> #define PAGE_SELECTIVE_INV     (1 << 0)
>>> #define PASID_SELECVIVE_INV    (1 << 1)
>>>        __u64 flags;
>>> #define INVALIDATE_HINT_BIT    (1 << 0)
>>> #define GLOBAL_HINT_BIT        (1 << 1)
>>> #define DRAIN_READ_BIT         (1 << 2)
>>> #define DRAIN_WRITE_BIT        (1 << 3)
>>> #define DEVICE_TLB_GLOBAL_BIT  (1 << 4)
>>>        __u8 mip;
>>>        __u16 pfsid;
>>> };
>>
>> This would also benefit from being split into generic and architectural parts. Former
>> would be defined in VFIO, latter would be in the IOMMU driver.
> 
> For invalidation part, I'm trying to have a generic definition by including all possible information
> for a TLB invalidation. Anyhow, I would  split the information when I send out my RFC patch
> for virtual SVM.
> 
>>
>> struct tlb_invalidate_info
>> {
>> 	__u8 granularity
>> #define DEFAULT_INV_GRN		0	/* What is default? */
> 
> It's device selective. Since all invalidation from guest should be at least device-selective, so I
> name it as default. Would rename it to make it clear.
> 
>> #define PAGE_SELECTIVE_INV	(1 << 0)
>> #define PASID_SELECTIVE_INV	(1 << 1)
>> 	__u32 pasid;
>> 	__u64 addr;
>> 	__u64 size;
>>
>> 	/* Since IOMMU format has already been validated for this table,
>> 	   the IOMMU driver knows that the following structure is in a
>> 	   format it knows */
>> 	__u8 opaque[];
>> };
>>
>> struct tlb_invalidate_info_intel
>> {
>> 	__u32 inv_type;
>> 	...
>> 	__u64 flags;
>> 	...
>> 	__u8 mip;
>> 	__u16 pfsid;
>> };
>>
>>> Although your proposal is for userspace driver SVM usage while mine is
>>> for  SVM usage in virtual machine, there should be a chance to make
>>> the channel meet our request. And I think it would be more acceptable.
>>> So I'd like to see your comments if we define the channel as following definition.
>>> If any better solution, pls feel free let me know.
>>>
>>> struct vfio_device_svm {
>>>        __u32   argsz;
>>> #define VFIO_SVM_BIND_PASIDTP           (1 << 0)
>>
>> To check we're on the same page: the absence of BIND_PASIDTP flag would mean
>> "bind a single PASID" and in that case, data[] would be a "u32 pasid"?
> 
> Actually, I planned to use a single channel for both guest PASID table ptr passdown
> and invalidation info passdown. So it is defined in this way.
> 
> VFIO_SVM_BIND_PASIDTP   -> data[] includes guest PASID table ptr and table size
> VFIO_SVM_PASSDOWN_INVALIDATE    -> data[] includes infos for invalidataion
> 
> Now, we want to have it shared by different vendors. So I would remove invalidate
> definition from it. Regards to your example, yes it would be a "u32 pasid" if you are
> passing a PASID value from guest. I think we are on the same page for the usage? 
> 

Yes, that seems sensible. I could add an explicit VFIO_BIND_PASID flags to
make it explicit that data[] is "u32 pasid" and avoid having any default.

>>
>>> #define VFIO_SVM_PASSDOWN_INVALIDATE    (1 << 1)
>>
>> Using the vfio_device_svm structure for invalidate operations is a bit odd, it might be
>> nicer to add a new VFIO_SVM_INVALIDATE ioctl, that takes the above
>> iommu_svm_tlb_invalidate_info as argument (with an added argsz.)
> 
> Agree, would add a separate IOCTL for invalidation.
> 
>>
>>> #define VFIO_SVM_PASID_RELEASE_FLUSHED	(1 << 2)
>>> #define VFIO_SVM_PASID_RELEASE_CLEAN	  (1 << 3)
>>>        __u32   flags;
>>>        __u32   length;
>>
>> If length is the size of data[], I guess we can already deduce this info from argsz.
> 
> yes, it is size of data. Maybe remove argsz. How about your opinion?

Argsz as first argument is standard across all VFIO ioctls, it allows the
kernel to check that the structure passed by the guest is consistent with
the structure it knows (see the comment at the beginning of
include/uapi/linux/vfio.h) So argsz would be the preferred way to
communicate the size of data[]

>>>        __u8    data[];
>>> };
>>
>> In general, I think that your proposal would work fine along mine. Note that for my
>> next version of this patch, I would like to move the BIND/UNBIND SVM operations
>> onto a VFIO container fd, instead of a VFIO device fd, if possible.
> 
> Attach the BIND/UNBIND operation onto VFIO container fd is practical.
> 
> BTW. Before you send out your next version, we'd better have a consensus on the
> vfio_device_svm definition. So that we can continue to drive our own work separately.
> 
>> ---
>> As an aside, it also aligns with the one I'm working on at the moment, for virtual
>> SVM at a finer granularity, where the BIND call is for a page table. I would add this
>> flag to vfio_device_svm:
>>
>> #define VFIO_SVM_BIND_PGTABLE		(1 << x)
> 
> Sure. I think it may also be a requirement from other vendors. I think you've mentioned
> it in the above statements.
> 
>> Which would indicate the following data (just a draft, I'm oscillating between this
>> and a generic PASID table solution, which would instead reuse your proposal):
>>
>> struct pgtable_info {
>> 	__u32 pasid;
>>
>> 	__u64 pgd;
>>
>> 	__u32 model;
>> 	__u32 variant;
>>
>> 	__u8 opaque[];
>> };
>>
>> On ARM SMMU we would need to specify an io-pgtable variant and the opaque
>> structure would be bits of io_pgtable_cfg (tcr, mair, etc.)
>>
>> The problem of portability is slightly different here, because while PASID table
>> format is specific to an IOMMU, page table format might be the same across
>> multiple flavors of IOMMUs. For instance, the PASID table format I use in this series
>> can only be found in the ARM SMMUv3 architecture, but the page table format is the
>> same as ARM SMMUv2, and other MMUs. I'd like to implement an IOMMU
>> independent of any page-table formats, that could use whatever the host offers (not
>> necessarily MMU PT). The model numbers described above wouldn't be suitable, so
>> we'd need another set of magic numbers for page table formats.
> 
> Not sure if I totally got your points. We may assume PASID table format differs from
> vendor to vendor. For the page table format, I assume you mean the page table of
> process. Or in other words MMU page table.
> 
> I'm a little bit confused about the following statements. Could you speak a little bit more?
> Is it for virtual SVM or user-space driver SVM usage?
> " I'd like to implement an IOMMU independent of any page-table formats, that could
> use whatever the host offers (not necessarily MMU PT)."

The IOMMU might be using a different page table format than the MMU. I'm
currently toying with the idea of having a portable paravirtualized IOMMU
that can query the page table format used by pIOMMU, and adopt it if the
page table handling code is available in the guest. This would be for
non-SVM nested translation, using VFIO to bind page tables private to the
IOMMU. I'll send a separate RFC to discuss this.

> I's nice to have such discussion. Let's co-work and have a well-defined API.

I agree. I don't plan to send a new version immediately since it will take
some time rework, but we can sync-up here or in private to avoid
conflicting proposals.

Thanks,
Jean-Philippe

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel