On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 3:45 PM Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 03:22:16PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 3:13 PM Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 01:58:07PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > > Right, but I think you meant to do this only when scalable mode is
> > > > > > disabled.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes IMHO it will definitely suite for !scalable case since that's
> > > > > exactly what
> > > > > we did before. What I'm also wondering is even if scalable is
> > > > > enabled but no
> > > > > "real" pasid is used, so if all the translations go through the
> > > > > default pasid
> > > > > that stored in the device context entry, then maybe we can ignore
> > > > > checking it.
> > > > > The latter is the "hacky" part mentioned above.
> > > >
> > > > The problem I see is that we can't know what PASID is used as default
> > > > without reading the context entry?
> > >
> > > Can the default NO_PASID being used in mixture of !NO_PASID use case on
> > > the
> > > same device? If that's possible, then I agree..
> >
> > My understanding is that it is possible.
>
> OK.
>
> >
> > >
> > > My previous idea should be based on the fact that if NO_PASID is used on
> > > one
> > > device, then all translations will be based on NO_PASID, but now I'm not
> > > sure
> > > of it.
> >
> > Actually, what I meant is:
> >
> > device 1 using transactions without PASID with RID2PASID 1
> > device 2 using transactions without PASID with RID2PASID 2
> >
> > Then we can't assume a default pasid here.
>
> This seems fine, because "device N" is still part of the equation when looking
> up, so we won't lookup wrong.
Right.
>
> But yeah.. it could not really work anyway.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The other thing to mention is, if we postpone the iotlb lookup to be
> > > > > after
> > > > > context entry, then logically we can have per-device iotlb, that
> > > > > means we can
> > > > > replace IntelIOMMUState.iotlb with VTDAddressSpace.iotlb in the
> > > > > future, too,
> > > > > which can also be more efficient.
> > > >
> > > > Right but we still need to limit the total slots and ATS is a better
> > > > way to deal with the IOTLB bottleneck actually.
> > >
> > > I think it depends on how the iotlb ghash is implemented. Logically I
> > > think if
> > > we can split the cache to per-device it'll be slightly better because we
> > > don't
> > > need to iterate over iotlbs of other devices when lookup anymore;
> > > meanwhile
> > > each iotlb takes less space too (no devfn needed anymore).
> >
> > So we've already used sid in the IOTLB hash, I wonder how much we can
> > gain form this.
>
> I think at least we can shrink iotlb structures, e.g.:
>
> struct vtd_iotlb_key {
> uint16_t sid; <------ not needed
> uint32_t pasid; <------ not needed
> uint64_t gfn;
> uint32_t level;
> };
I don't get why PASID is not needed.
Thanks
>
> struct VTDIOTLBEntry {
> uint64_t gfn;
> uint16_t domain_id;
> uint32_t pasid; <------ not needed
> uint64_t slpte;
> uint64_t mask;
> uint8_t access_flags;
> };
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Peter Xu
>
