From: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
To: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Cc: "Peter Maydell" <peter.maydell@linaro.org>,
"Yan Zhao" <yan.y.zhao@intel.com>,
"Juan Quintela" <quintela@redhat.com>,
"libvir-list@redhat.com" <libvir-list@redhat.com>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Eugenio Pérez" <eperezma@redhat.com>,
"Eric Auger" <eric.auger@redhat.com>,
"Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 1/1] memory: Delete assertion in memory_region_unregister_iommu_notifier
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 16:09:46 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <69f6d6e7-a0b1-abae-894e-4e81b7e0cc90@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200630153911.GD3138@xz-x1>
On 2020/6/30 下午11:39, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 10:41:10AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>> /* According to ATS spec table 2.4:
>>> * S = 0, bits 15:12 = xxxx range size: 4K
>>> * S = 1, bits 15:12 = xxx0 range size: 8K
>>> * S = 1, bits 15:12 = xx01 range size: 16K
>>> * S = 1, bits 15:12 = x011 range size: 32K
>>> * S = 1, bits 15:12 = 0111 range size: 64K
>>> * ...
>>> */
>>
>> Right, but the comment is probably misleading here, since it's for the PCI-E
>> transaction between IOMMU and device not for the device IOTLB invalidation
>> descriptor.
>>
>> For device IOTLB invalidation descriptor, spec allows a [0, ~0ULL]
>> invalidation:
>>
>> "
>>
>> 6.5.2.5 Device-TLB Invalidate Descriptor
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Size (S): The size field indicates the number of consecutive pages targeted
>> by this invalidation
>> request. If S field is zero, a single page at page address specified by
>> Address [63:12] is requested
>> to be invalidated. If S field is Set, the least significant bit in the
>> Address field with value 0b
>> indicates the invalidation address range. For example, if S field is Set and
>> Address[12] is Clear, it
>> indicates an 8KB invalidation address range with base address in Address
>> [63:13]. If S field and
>> Address[12] is Set and bit 13 is Clear, it indicates a 16KB invalidation
>> address range with base
>> address in Address [63:14], etc.
>>
>> "
>>
>> So if we receive an address whose [63] is 0 and the rest is all 1, it's then
>> a [0, ~0ULL] invalidation.
> Yes. I think invalidating the whole range is always fine. It's still not
> arbitrary, right? E.g., we can't even invalidate (0x1000, 0x3000) with
> device-iotlb because of the address mask, not to say sub-pages.
Yes.
>
>>
>>>>>> How about just convert to use a range [start, end] for any notifier and move
>>>>>> the checks (e.g the assert) into the actual notifier implemented (vhost or
>>>>>> vfio)?
>>>>> IOMMUTLBEntry itself is the abstraction layer of TLB entry. Hardware TLB entry
>>>>> is definitely not arbitrary range either (because AFAICT the hardware should
>>>>> only cache PFN rather than address, so at least PAGE_SIZE aligned).
>>>>> Introducing this flag will already make this trickier just to avoid introducing
>>>>> another similar struct to IOMMUTLBEntry, but I really don't want to make it a
>>>>> default option... Not to mention I probably have no reason to urge the rest
>>>>> iommu notifier users (tcg, vfio) to change their existing good code to suite
>>>>> any of the backend who can cooperate with arbitrary address ranges...
>>>> Ok, so it looks like we need a dedicated notifiers to device IOTLB.
>>> Or we can also make a new flag for device iotlb just like current UNMAP? Then
>>> we replace the vhost type from UNMAP to DEVICE_IOTLB. But IMHO using the
>>> ARBITRARY_LENGTH flag would work in a similar way. DEVICE_IOTLB flag could
>>> also allow virtio/vhost to only receive one invalidation (now IIUC it'll
>>> receive both iotlb and device-iotlb for unmapping a page when ats=on), but then
>>> ats=on will be a must and it could break some old (misconfiged) qemu because
>>> afaict previously virtio/vhost could even work with vIOMMU (accidentally) even
>>> without ats=on.
>>
>> That's a bug and I don't think we need to workaround mis-configurated qemu
>> :)
> IMHO it depends on the strictness we want on the qemu cmdline API. :)
>
> We should at least check libvirt to make sure it's using ats=on always, then I
> agree maybe we can avoid considering the rest...
>
> Thanks,
Cc libvirt list, but I think we should fix libvirt if they don't provide
"ats=on".
Thanks
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-01 8:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 68+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-26 6:41 [RFC v2 0/1] memory: Delete assertion in memory_region_unregister_iommu_notifier Eugenio Pérez
2020-06-26 6:41 ` [RFC v2 1/1] " Eugenio Pérez
2020-06-26 21:29 ` Peter Xu
2020-06-27 7:26 ` Yan Zhao
2020-06-27 12:57 ` Peter Xu
2020-06-28 1:36 ` Yan Zhao
2020-06-28 7:03 ` Jason Wang
2020-06-28 14:47 ` Peter Xu
2020-06-29 5:51 ` Jason Wang
2020-06-29 13:34 ` Peter Xu
2020-06-30 2:41 ` Jason Wang
2020-06-30 8:29 ` Jason Wang
2020-06-30 9:21 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2020-06-30 9:23 ` Jason Wang
2020-06-30 15:20 ` Peter Xu
2020-07-01 8:11 ` Jason Wang
2020-07-01 12:16 ` Peter Xu
2020-07-01 12:30 ` Jason Wang
2020-07-01 12:41 ` Peter Xu
2020-07-02 3:00 ` Jason Wang
2020-06-30 15:39 ` Peter Xu
2020-07-01 8:09 ` Jason Wang [this message]
2020-07-02 3:01 ` Jason Wang
2020-07-02 15:45 ` Peter Xu
2020-07-03 7:24 ` Jason Wang
2020-07-03 13:03 ` Peter Xu
2020-07-07 8:03 ` Jason Wang
2020-07-07 19:54 ` Peter Xu
2020-07-08 5:42 ` Jason Wang
2020-07-08 14:16 ` Peter Xu
2020-07-09 5:58 ` Jason Wang
2020-07-09 14:10 ` Peter Xu
2020-07-10 6:34 ` Jason Wang
2020-07-10 13:30 ` Peter Xu
2020-07-13 4:04 ` Jason Wang
2020-07-16 1:00 ` Peter Xu
2020-07-16 2:54 ` Jason Wang
2020-07-17 14:18 ` Peter Xu
2020-07-20 4:02 ` Jason Wang
2020-07-20 13:03 ` Peter Xu
2020-07-21 6:20 ` Jason Wang
2020-07-21 15:10 ` Peter Xu
2020-08-03 16:00 ` Eugenio Pérez
2020-08-04 20:30 ` Peter Xu
2020-08-05 5:45 ` Jason Wang
2020-08-11 17:01 ` Eugenio Perez Martin
2020-08-11 17:10 ` Eugenio Perez Martin
2020-06-29 15:05 ` [RFC v2 0/1] " Paolo Bonzini
2020-07-03 7:39 ` Eugenio Perez Martin
2020-07-03 10:10 ` Paolo Bonzini
2020-08-11 17:55 ` [RFC v3 " Eugenio Pérez
2020-08-11 17:55 ` [RFC v3 1/1] memory: Skip bad range assertion if notifier supports arbitrary masks Eugenio Pérez
2020-08-12 2:24 ` Jason Wang
2020-08-12 8:49 ` Eugenio Perez Martin
2020-08-18 14:24 ` Eugenio Perez Martin
2020-08-19 7:15 ` Jason Wang
2020-08-19 8:22 ` Eugenio Perez Martin
2020-08-19 9:36 ` Jason Wang
2020-08-19 15:50 ` Peter Xu
2020-08-20 2:28 ` Jason Wang
2020-08-21 14:12 ` Peter Xu
2020-09-01 3:05 ` Jason Wang
2020-09-01 19:35 ` Peter Xu
2020-09-02 5:13 ` Jason Wang
2020-08-11 18:10 ` [RFC v3 0/1] memory: Delete assertion in memory_region_unregister_iommu_notifier Eugenio Perez Martin
2020-08-11 19:27 ` Peter Xu
2020-08-12 14:33 ` Eugenio Perez Martin
2020-08-12 21:12 ` Peter Xu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=69f6d6e7-a0b1-abae-894e-4e81b7e0cc90@redhat.com \
--to=jasowang@redhat.com \
--cc=eperezma@redhat.com \
--cc=eric.auger@redhat.com \
--cc=libvir-list@redhat.com \
--cc=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peter.maydell@linaro.org \
--cc=peterx@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=quintela@redhat.com \
--cc=yan.y.zhao@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).