On 2020/2/21 下午10:56, Halil Pasic wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 14:22:26 +0800
> Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2020/2/21 上午12:06, Halil Pasic wrote:
>>> Currently if one intends to run a memory protection enabled VM with
>>> virtio devices and linux as the guest OS, one needs to specify the
>>> VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM flag for each virtio device to make the guest
>>> linux use the DMA API, which in turn handles the memory
>>> encryption/protection stuff if the guest decides to turn itself into
>>> a protected one. This however makes no sense due to multiple reasons:
>>> * The device is not changed by the fact that the guest RAM is
>>> protected. The so called IOMMU bypass quirk is not affected.
>>> * This usage is not congruent with  standardised semantics of
>>> VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM. Guest memory protected is an orthogonal reason
>>> for using DMA API in virtio (orthogonal with respect to what is
>>> expressed by VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM).
>>>
>>> This series aims to decouple 'have to use DMA API because my (guest) RAM
>>> is protected' and 'have to use DMA API because the device told me
>>> VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM'.
>>>
>>> Please find more detailed explanations about the conceptual aspects in
>>> the individual patches. There is however also a very practical problem
>>> that is addressed by this series.
>>>
>>> For vhost-net the feature VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM has the following side
>>> effect The vhost code assumes it the addresses on the virtio descriptor
>>> ring are not guest physical addresses but iova's, and insists on doing a
>>> translation of these regardless of what transport is used (e.g. whether
>>> we emulate a PCI or a CCW device). (For details see commit 6b1e6cc7855b
>>> "vhost: new device IOTLB API".) On s390 this results in severe
>>> performance degradation (c.a. factor 10).
>>
>> Do you see a consistent degradation on the performance, or it only
>> happen when for during the beginning of the test?
>>
> AFAIK the degradation is consistent.
>
>>> BTW with ccw I/O there is
>>> (architecturally) no IOMMU, so the whole address translation makes no
>>> sense in the context of virtio-ccw.
>>
>> I suspect we can do optimization in qemu side.
>>
>> E.g send memtable entry via IOTLB API when vIOMMU is not enabled.
>>
>> If this makes sense, I can draft patch to see if there's any difference.
> Frankly I would prefer to avoid IOVAs on the descriptor ring (and the
> then necessary translation) for virtio-ccw altogether. But Michael
> voiced his opinion that we should mandate F_IOMMU_PLATFORM for devices
> that could be used with guests running in protected mode. I don't share
> his opinion, but that's an ongoing discussion.
>
> Should we end up having to do translation from IOVA in vhost, we are
> very interested in that translation being fast and efficient.
>
> In that sense we would be very happy to test any optimization that aim
> into that direction.
>
> Thank you very much for your input!


Using IOTLB API on platform without IOMMU support is not intended. 
Please try the attached patch to see if it helps.

Thanks


>
> Regards,
> Halil
>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>> Halil Pasic (2):
>>>     mm: move force_dma_unencrypted() to mem_encrypt.h
>>>     virtio: let virtio use DMA API when guest RAM is protected
>>>
>>>    drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c |  3 +++
>>>    include/linux/dma-direct.h   |  9 ---------
>>>    include/linux/mem_encrypt.h  | 10 ++++++++++
>>>    3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>>
>>>
>>> base-commit: ca7e1fd1026c5af6a533b4b5447e1d2f153e28f2