On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 10:34 PM Eugenio Perez Martin <epere...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 10:12 AM Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 3:03 PM Eugenio Perez Martin > > <epere...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 4:34 AM Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 8:07 PM Eugenio Perez Martin > > > > <epere...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 11:01 AM Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 3:54 PM Eugenio Perez Martin > > > > > > <epere...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 11:23 AM Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 4:32 PM Jason Wang > > > > > > > > <jasow...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 在 2021/10/1 下午3:06, Eugenio Pérez 写道: > > > > > > > > > > This tree is able to look for a translated address from an > > > > > > > > > > IOVA address. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At first glance is similar to util/iova-tree. However, SVQ > > > > > > > > > > working on > > > > > > > > > > devices with limited IOVA space need more capabilities, > > > > > > > > > > like allocating > > > > > > > > > > IOVA chunks or perform reverse translations (qemu addresses > > > > > > > > > > to iova). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't see any reverse translation is used in the shadow > > > > > > > > > code. Or > > > > > > > > > anything I missed? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok, it looks to me that it is used in the iova allocator. But I > > > > > > > > think > > > > > > > > it's better to decouple it to an independent allocator instead > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > vhost iova tree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Reverse translation is used every time a buffer is made available, > > > > > > > since buffers content are not copied, only the descriptors to SVQ > > > > > > > vring. > > > > > > > > > > > > I may miss something but I didn't see the code? Qemu knows the VA of > > > > > > virtqueue, and the VA of the VQ is stored in the VirtQueueElem? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's used in the patch 20/20, could that be the misunderstanding? The > > > > > function calling it is vhost_svq_translate_addr. > > > > > > > > > > Qemu knows the VA address of the buffer, but it must offer a valid SVQ > > > > > iova to the device. That is the translation I mean. > > > > > > > > Ok, I get you. So if I understand correctly, what you did is: > > > > > > > > 1) allocate IOVA during region_add > > > > 2) preform VA->IOVA reverse lookup in handle_kick > > > > > > > > This should be fine, but here're some suggestions: > > > > > > > > 1) remove the assert(map) in vhost_svq_translate_addr() since guest > > > > can add e.g BAR address > > > > > > Wouldn't VirtQueue block them in virtqueue_pop / address_space_read_* > > > functions? I'm fine to remove it but I would say it adds value against > > > coding error. > > > > I think not. Though these addresses were excluded in > > vhost_vdpa_listener_skipped_section(). For Qemu memory core, they are > > valid addresses. Qemu emulate how hardware work (e.g pci p2p), so dma > > to bar is allowed. > > > > Ok I will treat them as errors. > > > > > > > > 2) we probably need a better name vhost_iova_tree_alloc(), maybe > > > > "vhost_iova_tree_map_alloc()" > > > > > > > > > > Ok I will change for the next version. > > > > > > > There's actually another method. > > > > > > > > 1) don't do IOVA/map allocation in region_add() > > > > 2) do the allocation in handle_kick(), then we know the IOVA so no > > > > reverse lookup > > > > > > > > The advantage is that this can work for the case of vIOMMU. And they > > > > should perform the same: > > > > > > > > 1) you method avoid the iova allocation per sg > > > > 2) my method avoid the reverse lookup per sg > > > > > > > > > > It's somehow doable, but we are replacing a tree search with a linear > > > insertion at this moment. > > > > > > I would say that guest's IOVA -> qemu vaddr part works with no change > > > for vIOMMU, since VirtQueue's virtqueue_pop already gives us the vaddr > > > even in the case of vIOMMU. > > > > So in this case: > > > > 1) listener gives us GPA->host IOVA (host IOVA is allocated per GPA) > > Right, that was a miss from my side, I think I get your point way better now. > > So now vhost-iova-tree translates GPA -> host IOVA in vIOMMU case, and > it is updated at the same frequency than guest physical memory hotplug > / unplug (little during migration, I guess). There are special entries > for SVQ vrings, that the tree does not map with GPA for obvious > reasons, and you cannot locate them when looking by GPA.
Yes. > > Let's assume too that only SVQ vrings have been sent as IOMMU / IOTLB > map, with the relation Host iova -> qemu's VA. > > > 2) virtqueue_pop gives us guest IOVA -> VA > > > > We still need extra logic to lookup the vIOMMU to get the guest IOVA > > GPA then we can know the host IOVA. > > > > That's somehow right, but I think this does not need to be *another* > search, insertion, etc. Please see below. > > > If we allocate after virtqueue_pop(), we can follow the same logic as > > without vIOMMU. Just allocate an host IOVA then all is done. > > > > > The only change I would add for that case > > > is the SVQ -> device map/unmapping part, so the device cannot access > > > random addresses but only the exposed ones. I'm assuming that part is > > > O(1). > > > > > > This way, we already have a tree with all the possible guest's > > > addresses, and we only need to look for it's SVQ iova -> vaddr > > > translation. This is a O(log(N)) operation, > > > > Yes, but it's requires traverse the vIOMMU page table which should be > > slower than our own iova tree? > > > > The lookup over vIOMMU is not needed (to perform twice), since > virtqueue_pop already do it. We already have that data here, just need > to extract it. For 'extract' do you mean fetching it from IOMMU's IOTLB via address_space_get_iotlb_entry()? Yes, it would be faster and probably an O(1). > Not saying that is complicated, just saying that I > didn't dedicate a lot of time to figure out how. The calltrace of it > is: > > #0 address_space_translate_iommu > (iommu_mr, xlat, plen_out, page_mask_out, is_write, is_mmio, > target_as, attrs) at ../softmmu/physmem.c:418 > #1 flatview_do_translate > (fv, addr, xlat, plen_out, page_mask_out, is_write, is_mmio, > target_as, attrs) at ../softmmu/physmem.c:505 > #2 flatview_translate > (fv, addr, xlat, plen, is_write, attrs) at ../softmmu/physmem.c:565 > #3 address_space_map (as, addr, plen, is_write, attrs) > at ../softmmu/physmem.c:3183 > #4 dma_memory_map (as, addr, len, dir) > at /home/qemu/svq/include/sysemu/dma.h:202 > #5 virtqueue_map_desc > (vdev, p_num_sg, addr, iov, max_num_sg, is_write, pa, sz) at > ../hw/virtio/virtio.c:1314 > #6 virtqueue_split_pop (vq, sz) at ../hw/virtio/virtio.c:1488 > > So with that GPA we can locate its correspond entry in the > vhost-iova-tree, in a read-only operation, O(log(N)). And element > address in qemu's va is not going to change until we mark it as used. > > This process (all the stack call trace) needs to be serialized somehow > in qemu's memory system internals, I'm just assuming that it will be > faster than the one we can do in SVQ with little effort, and it will > help to reduce duplication. If is not the case, I think it is even > more beneficial to improve it, than to reinvent it in SVQ. I think so. Thanks > > After that, an iommu map needs to be sent to the device, as (qemu's > iommu obtained from the tree, qemu's VA, length, ...). We may even > batch them. Another option is to wait for the miss(), but I think that > would be a waste of resources. > > The reverse is also true with the unmapping: When we see an used > descriptor, IOTLB unmap(s) will be sent before send the descriptor to > guest as used. > > > > and read only, so it's > > > easily parallelizable when we make each SVQ in it's own thread (if > > > needed). > > > > Yes, this is because the host IOVA was allocated before by the memory > > listener. > > > > Right. > > > > The only thing left is to expose that with an iommu miss > > > (O(1)) and unmap it on used buffers processing (also O(1)). The > > > domination operation keeps being VirtQueue's own code lookup for > > > guest's IOVA -> GPA, which I'm assuming is already well optimized and > > > will benefit from future optimizations since qemu's memory system is > > > frequently used. > > > > > > To optimize your use case we would need to add a custom (and smarter > > > than the currently used) allocator to SVQ. I've been looking for ways > > > to reuse glibc or similar in our own arenas but with no luck. It will > > > be code that SVQ needs to maintain by and for itself anyway. > > > > The benefit is to have separate iova allocation from the tree. > > > > > > > > In either case it should not be hard to switch to your method, just a > > > few call changes in the future, if we achieve a faster allocator. > > > > > > Would that make sense? > > > > Yes, feel free to choose any method you wish or feel simpler in the next > > series. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At this point all the limits are copied to vhost iova tree in the > > > > > > > next > > > > > > > revision I will send, defined at its creation at > > > > > > > vhost_iova_tree_new(). They are outside of util/iova-tree, only > > > > > > > sent > > > > > > > to the latter at allocation time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since vhost_iova_tree has its own vhost_iova_tree_alloc(), that > > > > > > > wraps > > > > > > > the iova_tree_alloc() [1], limits could be kept in vhost-vdpa and > > > > > > > make > > > > > > > them an argument of vhost_iova_tree_alloc. But I'm not sure if > > > > > > > it's > > > > > > > what you are proposing or I'm missing something. > > > > > > > > > > > > If the reverse translation is only used in iova allocation, I meant > > > > > > to > > > > > > split the logic of IOVA allocation itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Still don't understand it, sorry :). In SVQ setup we allocate an iova > > > > > address for every guest's GPA address its driver can use. After that > > > > > there should be no allocation unless memory is hotplugged. > > > > > > > > > > So the limits are only needed precisely at allocation time. Not sure > > > > > if that is what you mean here, but to first allocate and then check if > > > > > it is within the range could lead to false negatives, since there > > > > > could be a valid range *in* the address but the iova allocator > > > > > returned us another range that fell outside the range. How could we > > > > > know the cause if it is not using the range itself? > > > > > > > > See my above reply. And we can teach the iova allocator to return the > > > > IOVA in the range that vhost-vDPA supports. > > > > > > > > > > Ok, > > > > > > For the next series it will be that way. I'm pretty sure we are > > > aligned in this part, but the lack of code in this series makes it > > > very hard to discuss it :). > > > > Fine. Let's see. > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Either way, I think it is harder to talk about this specific case > > > > > > > without code, since this one still does not address the limits. > > > > > > > Would > > > > > > > you prefer me to send another RFC in WIP quality, with *not* all > > > > > > > comments addressed? I would say that there is not a lot of pending > > > > > > > work to send the next one, but it might be easier for all of us. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd prefer to try to address them all, otherwise it's not easy to > > > > > > see > > > > > > what is missing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Got it, I will do it that way then! > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] This util/iova-tree method will be proposed in the next > > > > > > > series, > > > > > > > and vhost_iova_tree wraps it since it needs to keep in sync both > > > > > > > trees: iova->qemu vaddr for iova allocation and the reverse one to > > > > > > > translate available buffers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >