On 9/22/25 07:49, Duan, Zhenzhong wrote:
Hi Joao,

-----Original Message-----
From: Joao Martins <joao.m.mart...@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] vfio/iommufd: Add
IOMMU_HWPT_GET_DIRTY_BITMAP_NO_CLEAR flag support

On 10/09/2025 03:36, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:
Pass IOMMU_HWPT_GET_DIRTY_BITMAP_NO_CLEAR when doing the last
dirty
bitmap query right before unmap, no PTEs flushes. This accelerates the
query without issue because unmap will tear down the mapping anyway.

Add a new element dirty_tracking_flags in VFIOIOMMUFDContainer to
be used for the flags of iommufd dirty tracking. Currently it is
set to either IOMMU_HWPT_GET_DIRTY_BITMAP_NO_CLEAR or 0 based on
the scenario.

Co-developed-by: Joao Martins <joao.m.mart...@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Joao Martins <joao.m.mart...@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.d...@intel.com>
Tested-by: Xudong Hao <xudong....@intel.com>
Tested-by: Giovannio Cabiddu <giovanni.cabi...@intel.com>
---
  hw/vfio/vfio-iommufd.h   | 1 +
  include/system/iommufd.h | 2 +-
  backends/iommufd.c       | 5 +++--
  hw/vfio/iommufd.c        | 6 +++++-
  backends/trace-events    | 2 +-
  5 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/hw/vfio/vfio-iommufd.h b/hw/vfio/vfio-iommufd.h
index 07ea0f4304..e0af241c75 100644
--- a/hw/vfio/vfio-iommufd.h
+++ b/hw/vfio/vfio-iommufd.h
@@ -26,6 +26,7 @@ typedef struct VFIOIOMMUFDContainer {
      VFIOContainerBase bcontainer;
      IOMMUFDBackend *be;
      uint32_t ioas_id;
+    uint64_t dirty_tracking_flags;
      QLIST_HEAD(, VFIOIOASHwpt) hwpt_list;
  } VFIOIOMMUFDContainer;

diff --git a/include/system/iommufd.h b/include/system/iommufd.h
index c9c72ffc45..63898e7b0d 100644
--- a/include/system/iommufd.h
+++ b/include/system/iommufd.h
@@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ bool
iommufd_backend_set_dirty_tracking(IOMMUFDBackend *be, uint32_t
hwpt_id,
  bool iommufd_backend_get_dirty_bitmap(IOMMUFDBackend *be,
uint32_t hwpt_id,
                                        uint64_t iova, ram_addr_t
size,
                                        uint64_t page_size,
uint64_t *data,
-                                      Error **errp);
+                                      uint64_t flags, Error
**errp);
  bool iommufd_backend_invalidate_cache(IOMMUFDBackend *be,
uint32_t id,
                                        uint32_t data_type,
uint32_t entry_len,
                                        uint32_t *entry_num, void
*data,
diff --git a/backends/iommufd.c b/backends/iommufd.c
index 2a33c7ab0b..3c4f6157e2 100644
--- a/backends/iommufd.c
+++ b/backends/iommufd.c
@@ -361,7 +361,7 @@ bool
iommufd_backend_get_dirty_bitmap(IOMMUFDBackend *be,
                                        uint32_t hwpt_id,
                                        uint64_t iova, ram_addr_t
size,
                                        uint64_t page_size,
uint64_t *data,
-                                      Error **errp)
+                                      uint64_t flags, Error **errp)
  {
      int ret;
      struct iommu_hwpt_get_dirty_bitmap get_dirty_bitmap = {
@@ -371,11 +371,12 @@ bool
iommufd_backend_get_dirty_bitmap(IOMMUFDBackend *be,
          .length = size,
          .page_size = page_size,
          .data = (uintptr_t)data,
+        .flags = flags,
      };

      ret = ioctl(be->fd, IOMMU_HWPT_GET_DIRTY_BITMAP,
&get_dirty_bitmap);
      trace_iommufd_backend_get_dirty_bitmap(be->fd, hwpt_id, iova,
size,
-                                           page_size, ret ? errno :
0);
+                                           flags, page_size, ret ?
errno : 0);
      if (ret) {
          error_setg_errno(errp, errno,
                           "IOMMU_HWPT_GET_DIRTY_BITMAP
(iova: 0x%"HWADDR_PRIx
diff --git a/hw/vfio/iommufd.c b/hw/vfio/iommufd.c
index 0057488ce9..c897aa6b17 100644
--- a/hw/vfio/iommufd.c
+++ b/hw/vfio/iommufd.c
@@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ static int iommufd_cdev_unmap_one(const
VFIOContainerBase *bcontainer,
                                    hwaddr iova, ram_addr_t size,
                                    IOMMUTLBEntry *iotlb)
  {
-    const VFIOIOMMUFDContainer *container =
+    VFIOIOMMUFDContainer *container =
          container_of(bcontainer, VFIOIOMMUFDContainer,
bcontainer);
      bool need_dirty_sync = false;
      Error *local_err = NULL;
@@ -73,9 +73,12 @@ static int iommufd_cdev_unmap_one(const
VFIOContainerBase *bcontainer,
      if (iotlb && vfio_container_dirty_tracking_is_started(bcontainer)) {
          if
(!vfio_container_devices_dirty_tracking_is_supported(bcontainer) &&
              bcontainer->dirty_pages_supported) {
+            container->dirty_tracking_flags =
+
IOMMU_HWPT_GET_DIRTY_BITMAP_NO_CLEAR;
              ret = vfio_container_query_dirty_bitmap(bcontainer, iova,
size,

iotlb->translated_addr,

&local_err);
+            container->dirty_tracking_flags = 0;

Why not changing vfio_container_query_dirty_bitmap to pass a flags too, like
the
original patches? This is a little unnecssary odd style to pass a flag via
container structure rather and then clearing.

Just want to be simpler, original patch introduced a new parameter to almost all
variants of *_query_dirty_bitmap() while the flags parameter is only used by
IOMMUFD backend when doing unmap_bitmap. Currently we already have three
backends, legacy VFIO, IOMMUFD and VFIO-user, only IOMMUFD need the flag.

I take container->dirty_tracking_flags as a notification mechanism, so set it 
before
vfio_container_query_dirty_bitmap() and clear it thereafter. Maybe clearing it 
in
iommufd_query_dirty_bitmap() is easier to be acceptable?


Part of the reason the original series had a VFIO_GET_DIRTY_NO_FLUSH for
generic
container abstraction was to not mix IOMMUFD UAPI specifics into base
container
API. Then in getting a VFIO_GET_DIRTY_NO_FLUSH, then type1 backend
could just
ignore the flag, while IOMMUFD translates it to
IOMMU_HWPT_GET_DIRTY_BITMAP_NO_CLEAR

I did port original patch 
https://github.com/yiliu1765/qemu/commit/99f83595d79d2e4170c9e456cf1a7b9521bd4f80
But it looks complex to have 'flags' parameter everywhere.
I think I would prefer like Joao to avoid caching information if possible
but I haven't check closely the mess it would introduce in the code. Let
me check.

Thanks,

C.



Reply via email to