Re: [PATCH v11 10/22] vfio iommu type1: Add support for mediated devices

[Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@nvidia.com>]

On 11/8/2016 4:46 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Nov 2016 02:40:44 +0530
> Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@nvidia.com> wrote:
> 
...

>> -static void vfio_unmap_unpin(struct vfio_iommu *iommu, struct vfio_dma *dma)
>> +static int __vfio_pin_page_external(struct vfio_dma *dma, unsigned long vaddr,
>> +				    int prot, unsigned long *pfn_base,
>> +				    bool do_accounting)
>> +{
>> +	struct task_struct *task = dma->task;
>> +	unsigned long limit = task_rlimit(task, RLIMIT_MEMLOCK) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>> +	bool lock_cap = dma->mlock_cap;
>> +	struct mm_struct *mm = dma->addr_space->mm;
>> +	int ret;
>> +	bool rsvd;
>> +
>> +	ret = vaddr_get_pfn(mm, vaddr, prot, pfn_base);
>> +	if (ret)
>> +		return ret;
>> +
>> +	rsvd = is_invalid_reserved_pfn(*pfn_base);
>> +
>> +	if (!rsvd && !lock_cap && mm->locked_vm + 1 > limit) {
>> +		put_pfn(*pfn_base, prot);
>> +		pr_warn("%s: Task %s (%d) RLIMIT_MEMLOCK (%ld) exceeded\n",
>> +			__func__, task->comm, task_pid_nr(task),
>> +			limit << PAGE_SHIFT);
>> +		return -ENOMEM;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	if (!rsvd && do_accounting)
>> +		vfio_lock_acct(mm, 1);
>> +
>> +	return 1;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void __vfio_unpin_page_external(struct vfio_addr_space *addr_space,
>> +				       unsigned long pfn, int prot,
>> +				       bool do_accounting)
>> +{
>> +	put_pfn(pfn, prot);
>> +
>> +	if (do_accounting)
>> +		vfio_lock_acct(addr_space->mm, -1);
> 
> Can't we batch this like we do elsewhere?  Intel folks, AIUI you intend
> to pin all VM memory through this side channel, have you tested the
> scalability and performance of this with larger VMs?  Our vfio_pfn
> data structure alone is 40 bytes per pinned page, which means for
> each 1GB of VM memory, we have 10MBs worth of struct vfio_pfn!
> Additionally, unmapping each 1GB of VM memory will result in 256k
> separate vfio_lock_acct() callbacks.  I'm concerned that we're not
> being efficient enough in either space or time.
> 
> One thought might be whether we really need to save the pfn, we better
> always get the same result if we pin it again, or maybe we can just do
> a lookup through the mm at that point without re-pinning.  Could we get
> to the point where we only need an atomic_t ref count per page in a
> linear array relative to the IOVA?

Ok. Is System RAM hot-plug supported? How is system RAM hot-plug
handled? Are there DMA_MAP calls on such hot-plug for additional range?
If we have a linear array/memory, we will have to realloc it on memory
hot-plug?

>  That would give us 1MB per 1GB
> overhead. The semantics of the pin and unpin would make more sense then
> too, both would take an IOVA range, only pinning would need a return
> mechanism. For instance:
> 
> int pin_pages(void *iommu_data, dma_addr_t iova_base,
> 	      int npage, unsigned long *pfn_base);
> 
> This would pin physically contiguous pages up to npage, returning the
> base pfn and returning the number of pages pinned (<= npage).  The
> vendor driver would make multiple calls to fill the necessary range.


With the current patch, input is user_pfn[] array and npages.

int vfio_pin_pages(struct device *dev, unsigned long *user_pfn,
                   int npage, int prot, unsigned long *phys_pfn)


When guest allocates memory with malloc(), gfns would not be contiguous,
right? These gfns (user_pfns) are passed as argument here.
Is there any case where we could get pin/unpin request for contiguous pages?


> Unpin would then simply be:
> 
> void unpin_pages(void *iommu_data, dma_addr_t iova_base, int npage);
> 
> Hugepage usage would really make such an interface shine (ie. 2MB+
> contiguous ranges).  A downside would be the overhead of getting the
> group and container reference in vfio for each callback, perhaps we'd
> need to figure out how the vendor driver could hold that reference.

In very initial phases of proposal, I had suggested to keep pointer to
container->iommu_data in struct mdev_device. But that was discarded.

> The current API of passing around pfn arrays, further increasing the
> overhead of the whole ecosystem just makes me cringe though.
> 

...

>> +		if (ret <= 0) {
>> +			WARN_ON(!ret);
>> +			goto pin_unwind;
>> +		}
>> +
>> +		mutex_lock(&dma->addr_space->pfn_list_lock);
>> +
>> +		/* search if pfn exist */
>> +		p = vfio_find_pfn(dma->addr_space, pfn[i]);
>> +		if (p) {
>> +			atomic_inc(&p->ref_count);
> 
> We never test whether (p->prot == prot), shouldn't we be doing
> something in that case?  In fact, why do we allow the side-channel
> through the .{un}pin_pages to specify page protection flags that might
> be different than the user specified for the DMA_MAP?  If the user
> specified read-only, the vendor driver should not be allowed to
> override with read-write access.
> 

If user specified protection flags for DMA_MAP could be
prot = IOMMU_WRITE | IOMMU_READ;

But vendor driver can request to pin page to be readonly, i.e.
IOMMU_READ. In that case, pin pages should be allowed, right?

Then the check should be if (p->prot & prot).

Thanks,
Kirti