Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v1 2/2] intel-iommu: Extend address width to 48 bits

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 09:02:30AM -0800, Prasad Singamsetty wrote:
> 
> 
> On 11/30/2017 8:43 PM, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:12:48AM -0800, Prasad Singamsetty wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 11/30/2017 10:56 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:33:50AM -0800, Prasad Singamsetty wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On 11/29/2017 7:25 PM, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 01:05:22PM -0800, Prasad Singamsetty wrote:
> > > > > > > Thanks Michael. Some comments below.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > On 11/28/2017 9:32 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 06:13:50PM -0500, prasad.singamsetty@oracle.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > From: Prasad Singamsetty <prasad.singamsetty@oracle.com>
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > The current implementation of Intel IOMMU code only supports 39 bits
> > > > > > > > > iova address width. This patch provides a new parameter (x-aw-bits)
> > > > > > > > > for intel-iommu to extend its address width to 48 bits but keeping the
> > > > > > > > > default the same (39 bits). The reason for not changing the default
> > > > > > > > > is to avoid potential compatibility problems
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > You can change the default, just make it 39 for existing machine types.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I think introducing a new machine type is not appropriate as this
> > > > > > > is an implementation limitation for the existing machine type.
> > > > > > > Currently q35 is the only machine type that supports intel-iommu.
> > > > > > > And we want to retain the current default behavior for q35 to avoid
> > > > > > > any new issues with live migration.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I guess "existing machine type" means e.g. pc-q35-2.11 and older ones,
> > > > > > rather than creating another machine type in parallel with q35.  So we
> > > > > > can set 48 bits as default on upcoming pc-q35-2.12 machines, while
> > > > > > keep the 39 bits on the old ones.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Please refer to include/hw/compat.h.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thanks Peter, for the clarification and pointer to this. I am still
> > > > > new to this but learning on how this works or how this is used in
> > > > > use cases like Live Migration.
> > 
> > You can refer to similar commit, like 048a2e8869.
> > 
> > But, I think I was wrong - you should better do the addition to
> > include/hw/i386/pc.h (see e.g. PC_COMPAT_2_10) rather than compat.h,
> > since Intel vIOMMU is only used for PC machines.
> 
> Thanks, Peter. That sounds good. We can add the compatibility
> default value to PC_COMPAT_2_11. How does it work for older
> machine types like PC_COMPAT_2_10 and older?

It's inherited.

> > 
> > And... you may also need to create that PC_COMPAT_2_11 macro after
> > 2.11 is released.  For that you can refer to a6fd5b0e050a.
> > 
> > Anyway, I think this "set default" work can be postponed after recent
> > release, which can be a separate work besides current series.
> 
> OK. To be clear, are you suggesting that we can change the default
> value to 48 bits as a separate patch and not include it with the
> current patch set?
> 
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Are you suggesting that we change the default to 48 bits in the
> > > > > next release (2.12)?
> > > > > 
> > > > > User need to specify an older machine type  (pc-q35-2.11 or older)
> > > > > to get the old default value of 39 bits. This still requires the
> > > > > patch I proposed to support compatibility for older releases
> > > > > except the introduction of the new property (x-aw-bits).
> > > > 
> > > > Yes. If you see a reason for users to limit it to 39 bits,
> > > > we can make it a supported property (not starting
> > > > with x-). If it's only for live migration, we can
> > > > use a non-supported property (with x-).
> > > I think it is only for Live Migration case, we need to
> > > support the old default value of 39 bits.
> > > 
> > > Do you see any need to keep a non-supported property?
> > > It may be useful for developers.
> > 
> > IMHO if it's for developers x-* would be good enough.  Thanks,
> > 
> 
> Sounds good.
> 
> Thanks.
> --Prasad