[virtio-dev] [RFC] content: tweak VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER

[virtio-dev] [RFC] content: tweak VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER

[Tiwei Bie]

VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER was proposed recently to allow
drivers to do some optimizations when devices are
implemented in software. But it only covers barrier
related optimizations. Later investigations show
that, it could cover more. So this patch tweaks this
feature bit to tell the driver whether it can assume
the device is implemented in software and runs on
host CPU, and also renames this feature bit to
VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE correspondingly.

Suggested-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Tiwei Bie <tiwei.bie@intel.com>
---
 content.tex | 22 ++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/content.tex b/content.tex
index be18234..5d6b977 100644
--- a/content.tex
+++ b/content.tex
@@ -5356,15 +5356,13 @@ Descriptors} and \ref{sec:Packed Virtqueues / Indirect Flag: Scatter-Gather Supp
   \item[VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER(35)] This feature indicates
   that all buffers are used by the device in the same
   order in which they have been made available.
-  \item[VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER(36)] This feature indicates
-  that the device needs the driver to use the barriers
-  suitable for hardware devices.  Some transports require
-  barriers to ensure devices have a consistent view of
-  memory.  When devices are implemented in software a
-  weaker form of barrier may be sufficient and yield
+  \item[VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE(36)] This feature indicates
+  that the device doesn't allow the driver to assume the
+  device is implemented in software and runs on host CPU.
+  When devices are implemented in software and run on host
+  CPU, some optimizations can be done in drivers and yield
   better performance.  This feature indicates whether
-  a stronger form of barrier suitable for hardware
-  devices is necessary.
+  drivers can make this assumption.
   \item[VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV(37)] This feature indicates that
   the device supports Single Root I/O Virtualization.
   Currently only PCI devices support this feature.
@@ -5383,9 +5381,9 @@ addresses to the device.
 
 A driver SHOULD accept VIRTIO_F_RING_PACKED if it is offered.
 
-A driver SHOULD accept VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER if it is offered.
-If VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER has been negotiated, a driver MUST use
-the barriers suitable for hardware devices.
+A driver SHOULD accept VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE if it is offered.
+If VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE has been negotiated, a driver MUST NOT
+assume the device is implemented in software and runs on host CPU.
 
 \devicenormative{\section}{Reserved Feature Bits}{Reserved Feature Bits}
 
@@ -5400,7 +5398,7 @@ accepted.
 If VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER has been negotiated, a device MUST use
 buffers in the same order in which they have been available.
 
-A device MAY fail to operate further if VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER
+A device MAY fail to operate further if VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE
 is not accepted.
 
 A device SHOULD offer VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV if it is a PCI device
-- 
2.17.0


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org

Re: [virtio-dev] [RFC] content: tweak VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER

[Halil Pasic]

On 06/25/2018 02:24 PM, Tiwei Bie wrote:
> VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER was proposed recently to allow
> drivers to do some optimizations when devices are
> implemented in software. But it only covers barrier
> related optimizations. Later investigations show
> that, it could cover more. So this patch tweaks this
> feature bit to tell the driver whether it can assume
> the device is implemented in software and runs on
> host CPU, and also renames this feature bit to
> VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE correspondingly.
> 
> Suggested-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Tiwei Bie <tiwei.bie@intel.com>

I think it would be conceptually cleaner to revert the
VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER and introduce VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE form
zero. The point is VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER never got released. Otherwise
I'm not sure altering the meaning of a feature bit is a good idea.
  

> ---
>   content.tex | 22 ++++++++++------------
>   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/content.tex b/content.tex
> index be18234..5d6b977 100644
> --- a/content.tex
> +++ b/content.tex
> @@ -5356,15 +5356,13 @@ Descriptors} and \ref{sec:Packed Virtqueues / Indirect Flag: Scatter-Gather Supp
>     \item[VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER(35)] This feature indicates
>     that all buffers are used by the device in the same
>     order in which they have been made available.
> -  \item[VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER(36)] This feature indicates
> -  that the device needs the driver to use the barriers
> -  suitable for hardware devices.  Some transports require
> -  barriers to ensure devices have a consistent view of
> -  memory.  When devices are implemented in software a
> -  weaker form of barrier may be sufficient and yield
> +  \item[VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE(36)] This feature indicates
> +  that the device doesn't allow the driver to assume the
> +  device is implemented in software and runs on host CPU.
> +  When devices are implemented in software and run on host
> +  CPU, some optimizations can be done in drivers and yield

s/optimizations/optimization/ ?

>     better performance.  This feature indicates whether

Previously 'yield better performance' was meaningful, but
IMHO it is not after the change.

> -  a stronger form of barrier suitable for hardware
> -  devices is necessary.
> +  drivers can make this assumption.

IMHO too vague. What is the assumption? That the device is a 'real'
device, or that it 'runs on host CPU'? This last sentence seems
also redundant with the first sentence.

I think we could sneak back the barriers topic here at least.
This 'if you see VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE don't do "some optimizations"'
is very vague. What is in except for memory barriers?

>     \item[VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV(37)] This feature indicates that
>     the device supports Single Root I/O Virtualization.
>     Currently only PCI devices support this feature.
> @@ -5383,9 +5381,9 @@ addresses to the device.
>   
>   A driver SHOULD accept VIRTIO_F_RING_PACKED if it is offered.
>   
> -A driver SHOULD accept VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER if it is offered.
> -If VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER has been negotiated, a driver MUST use
> -the barriers suitable for hardware devices.
> +A driver SHOULD accept VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE if it is offered.
> +If VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE has been negotiated, a driver MUST NOT
> +assume the device is implemented in software and runs on host CPU.
>   
>   \devicenormative{\section}{Reserved Feature Bits}{Reserved Feature Bits}
>   
> @@ -5400,7 +5398,7 @@ accepted.
>   If VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER has been negotiated, a device MUST use
>   buffers in the same order in which they have been available.
>   
> -A device MAY fail to operate further if VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER
> +A device MAY fail to operate further if VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE
>   is not accepted.

I think them MAY should be a SHOULD. If the device knows that it is likely
to malfunction if the driver does 'the some optimisations' then I think
failing the feature negotiation is the right thing to do.

Regards,
Halil

>   
>   A device SHOULD offer VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV if it is a PCI device
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org

Re: [virtio-dev] [RFC] content: tweak VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 06:07:17PM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote:
> 
> 
> On 06/25/2018 02:24 PM, Tiwei Bie wrote:
> > VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER was proposed recently to allow
> > drivers to do some optimizations when devices are
> > implemented in software. But it only covers barrier
> > related optimizations. Later investigations show
> > that, it could cover more. So this patch tweaks this
> > feature bit to tell the driver whether it can assume
> > the device is implemented in software and runs on
> > host CPU, and also renames this feature bit to
> > VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE correspondingly.
> > 
> > Suggested-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Tiwei Bie <tiwei.bie@intel.com>
> 
> I think it would be conceptually cleaner to revert the
> VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER and introduce VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE form
> zero. The point is VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER never got released. Otherwise
> I'm not sure altering the meaning of a feature bit is a good idea.
> 
> > ---
> >   content.tex | 22 ++++++++++------------
> >   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/content.tex b/content.tex
> > index be18234..5d6b977 100644
> > --- a/content.tex
> > +++ b/content.tex
> > @@ -5356,15 +5356,13 @@ Descriptors} and \ref{sec:Packed Virtqueues / Indirect Flag: Scatter-Gather Supp
> >     \item[VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER(35)] This feature indicates
> >     that all buffers are used by the device in the same
> >     order in which they have been made available.
> > -  \item[VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER(36)] This feature indicates
> > -  that the device needs the driver to use the barriers
> > -  suitable for hardware devices.  Some transports require
> > -  barriers to ensure devices have a consistent view of
> > -  memory.  When devices are implemented in software a
> > -  weaker form of barrier may be sufficient and yield
> > +  \item[VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE(36)] This feature indicates
> > +  that the device doesn't allow the driver to assume the
> > +  device is implemented in software and runs on host CPU.
> > +  When devices are implemented in software and run on host
> > +  CPU, some optimizations can be done in drivers and yield
> 
> s/optimizations/optimization/ ?

Why?

> >     better performance.  This feature indicates whether
> 
> Previously 'yield better performance' was meaningful, but
> IMHO it is not after the change.

I agree it's somehow vague.

> > -  a stronger form of barrier suitable for hardware
> > -  devices is necessary.
> > +  drivers can make this assumption.
> 
> IMHO too vague. What is the assumption? That the device is a 'real'
> device, or that it 'runs on host CPU'? This last sentence seems
> also redundant with the first sentence.
> 
> I think we could sneak back the barriers topic here at least.
> This 'if you see VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE don't do "some optimizations"'
> is very vague. What is in except for memory barriers?
> 
> >     \item[VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV(37)] This feature indicates that
> >     the device supports Single Root I/O Virtualization.
> >     Currently only PCI devices support this feature.
> > @@ -5383,9 +5381,9 @@ addresses to the device.
> >   A driver SHOULD accept VIRTIO_F_RING_PACKED if it is offered.
> > -A driver SHOULD accept VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER if it is offered.
> > -If VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER has been negotiated, a driver MUST use
> > -the barriers suitable for hardware devices.
> > +A driver SHOULD accept VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE if it is offered.
> > +If VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE has been negotiated, a driver MUST NOT
> > +assume the device is implemented in software and runs on host CPU.
> >   \devicenormative{\section}{Reserved Feature Bits}{Reserved Feature Bits}
> > @@ -5400,7 +5398,7 @@ accepted.
> >   If VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER has been negotiated, a device MUST use
> >   buffers in the same order in which they have been available.
> > -A device MAY fail to operate further if VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER
> > +A device MAY fail to operate further if VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE
> >   is not accepted.
> 
> I think them MAY should be a SHOULD. If the device knows that it is likely
> to malfunction if the driver does 'the some optimisations' then I think
> failing the feature negotiation is the right thing to do.
> 
> Regards,
> Halil

With the REAL_DEVICE as vague as it is, it's hard to argue either way.


> >   A device SHOULD offer VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV if it is a PCI device
> > 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org

Re: [virtio-dev] [RFC] content: tweak VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER

[Halil Pasic]

On 06/25/2018 07:42 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 06:07:17PM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 06/25/2018 02:24 PM, Tiwei Bie wrote:
>>> VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER was proposed recently to allow
[..]
>>> +  \item[VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE(36)] This feature indicates
>>> +  that the device doesn't allow the driver to assume the
>>> +  device is implemented in software and runs on host CPU.
>>> +  When devices are implemented in software and run on host
>>> +  CPU, some optimizations can be done in drivers and yield
>>
>> s/optimizations/optimization/ ?
> 
> Why?
> 

My spell-checker complains but after searching the internet it
'optimizations' seems like a legit plural. However
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/optimization
does state 'mass noun' (that is uncountable) but then there
is an example with countable :S. English is not my strong
side.

Regards,
Halil


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org

Re: [virtio-dev] [RFC] content: tweak VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 08:40:55PM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote:
> 
> 
> On 06/25/2018 07:42 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 06:07:17PM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 06/25/2018 02:24 PM, Tiwei Bie wrote:
> > > > VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER was proposed recently to allow
> [..]
> > > > +  \item[VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE(36)] This feature indicates
> > > > +  that the device doesn't allow the driver to assume the
> > > > +  device is implemented in software and runs on host CPU.
> > > > +  When devices are implemented in software and run on host
> > > > +  CPU, some optimizations can be done in drivers and yield
> > > 
> > > s/optimizations/optimization/ ?
> > 
> > Why?
> > 
> 
> My spell-checker complains but after searching the internet it
> 'optimizations' seems like a legit plural. However
> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/optimization
> does state 'mass noun' (that is uncountable) but then there
> is an example with countable :S. English is not my strong
> side.
> 
> Regards,
> Halil


It's like e.g. coffee.

So "some optimization" means "a little".

"Some optimizations" means "not all".

-- 
MST

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org

Re: [virtio-dev] [RFC] content: tweak VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER

[Halil Pasic]

On 06/25/2018 11:27 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 08:40:55PM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 06/25/2018 07:42 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 06:07:17PM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 06/25/2018 02:24 PM, Tiwei Bie wrote:
>>>>> VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER was proposed recently to allow
>> [..]
>>>>> +  \item[VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE(36)] This feature indicates
>>>>> +  that the device doesn't allow the driver to assume the
>>>>> +  device is implemented in software and runs on host CPU.
>>>>> +  When devices are implemented in software and run on host
>>>>> +  CPU, some optimizations can be done in drivers and yield
>>>>
>>>> s/optimizations/optimization/ ?
>>>
>>> Why?
>>>
>>
>> My spell-checker complains but after searching the internet it
>> 'optimizations' seems like a legit plural. However
>> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/optimization
>> does state 'mass noun' (that is uncountable) but then there
>> is an example with countable :S. English is not my strong
>> side.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Halil
> 
> 
> It's like e.g. coffee.
> 
> So "some optimization" means "a little".
> 
> "Some optimizations" means "not all".
> 

Thanks for the explanation.

Regards,
Halil


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org

[virtio-dev] Re: [RFC] content: tweak VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 08:24:42PM +0800, Tiwei Bie wrote:
> VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER was proposed recently to allow
> drivers to do some optimizations when devices are
> implemented in software. But it only covers barrier
> related optimizations. Later investigations show
> that, it could cover more. So this patch tweaks this
> feature bit to tell the driver whether it can assume
> the device is implemented in software and runs on
> host CPU, and also renames this feature bit to
> VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE correspondingly.
> 
> Suggested-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Tiwei Bie <tiwei.bie@intel.com>
> ---
>  content.tex | 22 ++++++++++------------
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/content.tex b/content.tex
> index be18234..5d6b977 100644
> --- a/content.tex
> +++ b/content.tex
> @@ -5356,15 +5356,13 @@ Descriptors} and \ref{sec:Packed Virtqueues / Indirect Flag: Scatter-Gather Supp
>    \item[VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER(35)] This feature indicates
>    that all buffers are used by the device in the same
>    order in which they have been made available.
> -  \item[VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER(36)] This feature indicates
> -  that the device needs the driver to use the barriers
> -  suitable for hardware devices.  Some transports require
> -  barriers to ensure devices have a consistent view of
> -  memory.  When devices are implemented in software a
> -  weaker form of barrier may be sufficient and yield
> +  \item[VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE(36)] This feature indicates
> +  that the device doesn't allow the driver to assume the
> +  device is implemented in software and runs on host CPU.
> +  When devices are implemented in software and run on host
> +  CPU, some optimizations can be done in drivers and yield
>    better performance.  This feature indicates whether
> -  a stronger form of barrier suitable for hardware
> -  devices is necessary.
> +  drivers can make this assumption.
>    \item[VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV(37)] This feature indicates that
>    the device supports Single Root I/O Virtualization.
>    Currently only PCI devices support this feature.
> @@ -5383,9 +5381,9 @@ addresses to the device.
>  
>  A driver SHOULD accept VIRTIO_F_RING_PACKED if it is offered.
>  
> -A driver SHOULD accept VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER if it is offered.
> -If VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER has been negotiated, a driver MUST use
> -the barriers suitable for hardware devices.
> +A driver SHOULD accept VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE if it is offered.
> +If VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE has been negotiated, a driver MUST NOT
> +assume the device is implemented in software and runs on host CPU.
>  
>  \devicenormative{\section}{Reserved Feature Bits}{Reserved Feature Bits}
>  
> @@ -5400,7 +5398,7 @@ accepted.
>  If VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER has been negotiated, a device MUST use
>  buffers in the same order in which they have been available.
>  
> -A device MAY fail to operate further if VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER
> +A device MAY fail to operate further if VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE
>  is not accepted.
>  
>  A device SHOULD offer VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV if it is a PCI device

I kind of dislike the REAL_DEVICE name.

At least part of the actual question, IMHO, is where is the device
located wrt memory that the driver shares with it.

This might include, but isn't necessarily limited to, device addressing
restrictions and cache synchronization.

As this patch correctly says, when virtio is used for host to hypervisor
communication, then I think it's easier to describe what is going on:
the device is actually implemented by another CPU just like the one
driver runs on that just happens not to be visible to the driver (I
don't think we need to try and define what host CPU is).

But what can we say when this isn't the case?  Maybe that a transport
and platform specific way should be used to discover the device location
and figure out a way to make memory contents visible to the device.


So - PLATFORM_LOCATION ? PLATFORM_DMA?


Also, how does all this interact with PLATFORM_IOMMU? Should we extend
PLATFORM_IOMMU to cover all addressing restrictions, and
PLATFORM_LOCATION (or whatever) to cover cache effects?
Then we might name it PLATFORM_CACHE. And where would encrypted
memory schemes such as SEV fit? Are they closer to PLATFORM_IOMMU?

Maybe we want to split it like this
- PLATFORM_IOMMU - extend to cover all platform addressing limitations
	(which memory is accessible)
- IO_BARRIERS - extend to cover all platform cache synchronization effects
	(which memory contents is visible)
?


All this is based on the assumption that the optimizations do not ATM
apply to notifications. It seems that guests already do barriers around
these, anyway - even for hypervisor based devices.
It might be OK to ignore this in spec for now, but
I'd like to have this discussed at least in the commit log.



> -- 
> 2.17.0

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [RFC] content: tweak VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER

[Halil Pasic]

On 06/25/2018 09:19 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 08:24:42PM +0800, Tiwei Bie wrote:
>> VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER was proposed recently to allow
>> drivers to do some optimizations when devices are
>> implemented in software. But it only covers barrier
>> related optimizations. Later investigations show
>> that, it could cover more. So this patch tweaks this
>> feature bit to tell the driver whether it can assume
>> the device is implemented in software and runs on
>> host CPU, and also renames this feature bit to
>> VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE correspondingly.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Tiwei Bie <tiwei.bie@intel.com>
>> ---
>>   content.tex | 22 ++++++++++------------
>>   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/content.tex b/content.tex
>> index be18234..5d6b977 100644
>> --- a/content.tex
>> +++ b/content.tex
>> @@ -5356,15 +5356,13 @@ Descriptors} and \ref{sec:Packed Virtqueues / Indirect Flag: Scatter-Gather Supp
>>     \item[VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER(35)] This feature indicates
>>     that all buffers are used by the device in the same
>>     order in which they have been made available.
>> -  \item[VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER(36)] This feature indicates
>> -  that the device needs the driver to use the barriers
>> -  suitable for hardware devices.  Some transports require
>> -  barriers to ensure devices have a consistent view of
>> -  memory.  When devices are implemented in software a
>> -  weaker form of barrier may be sufficient and yield
>> +  \item[VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE(36)] This feature indicates
>> +  that the device doesn't allow the driver to assume the
>> +  device is implemented in software and runs on host CPU.
>> +  When devices are implemented in software and run on host
>> +  CPU, some optimizations can be done in drivers and yield
>>     better performance.  This feature indicates whether
>> -  a stronger form of barrier suitable for hardware
>> -  devices is necessary.
>> +  drivers can make this assumption.
>>     \item[VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV(37)] This feature indicates that
>>     the device supports Single Root I/O Virtualization.
>>     Currently only PCI devices support this feature.
>> @@ -5383,9 +5381,9 @@ addresses to the device.
>>   
>>   A driver SHOULD accept VIRTIO_F_RING_PACKED if it is offered.
>>   
>> -A driver SHOULD accept VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER if it is offered.
>> -If VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER has been negotiated, a driver MUST use
>> -the barriers suitable for hardware devices.
>> +A driver SHOULD accept VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE if it is offered.
>> +If VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE has been negotiated, a driver MUST NOT
>> +assume the device is implemented in software and runs on host CPU.
>>   
>>   \devicenormative{\section}{Reserved Feature Bits}{Reserved Feature Bits}
>>   
>> @@ -5400,7 +5398,7 @@ accepted.
>>   If VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER has been negotiated, a device MUST use
>>   buffers in the same order in which they have been available.
>>   
>> -A device MAY fail to operate further if VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER
>> +A device MAY fail to operate further if VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE
>>   is not accepted.
>>   
>>   A device SHOULD offer VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV if it is a PCI device
> 
> I kind of dislike the REAL_DEVICE name.
> 
> At least part of the actual question, IMHO, is where is the device
> located wrt memory that the driver shares with it.
> 
> This might include, but isn't necessarily limited to, device addressing
> restrictions and cache synchronization.
> 
> As this patch correctly says, when virtio is used for host to hypervisor
> communication, then I think it's easier to describe what is going on:
> the device is actually implemented by another CPU just like the one
> driver runs on that just happens not to be visible to the driver (I
> don't think we need to try and define what host CPU is).
> 
> But what can we say when this isn't the case?  Maybe that a transport
> and platform specific way should be used to discover the device location
> and figure out a way to make memory contents visible to the device.
> 
> 
> So - PLATFORM_LOCATION ? PLATFORM_DMA?
> 
> 
> Also, how does all this interact with PLATFORM_IOMMU? Should we extend
> PLATFORM_IOMMU to cover all addressing restrictions, and
> PLATFORM_LOCATION (or whatever) to cover cache effects?
> Then we might name it PLATFORM_CACHE. And where would encrypted
> memory schemes such as SEV fit? Are they closer to PLATFORM_IOMMU?
> 
> Maybe we want to split it like this
> - PLATFORM_IOMMU - extend to cover all platform addressing limitations
> 	(which memory is accessible)
> - IO_BARRIERS - extend to cover all platform cache synchronization effects
> 	(which memory contents is visible)
> ?
> 
> 
> All this is based on the assumption that the optimizations do not ATM
> apply to notifications. It seems that guests already do barriers around
> these, anyway - even for hypervisor based devices.
> It might be OK to ignore this in spec for now, but
> I'd like to have this discussed at least in the commit log.
> 

I agree with Michael, VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE does not seem to be a good
name. And I agree with Michael, there is a lot's of stuff that should
be clarified (in an ideal world).

My understanding of what we currently do if PLATFORM_IOMMU is set,
is use DMA API and allocate memory for the virtqueues with
dma_alloc_coherent(). AFAIU the latter has implications on what can
be assumed about caching. (Quote from Documentation/DMA-API.txt
"Consistent memory is memory for which a write by either the device or
the processor can immediately be read by the processor or device
without having to worry about caching effects.  (You may however need
to make sure to flush the processor's write buffers before telling
devices to read that memory.)")

AFAIU SEV fits under PLATFORM_IOMMU.

Regards,
Halil


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [RFC] content: tweak VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER

[Tiwei Bie]

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 03:47:28PM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote:
> On 06/25/2018 09:19 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 08:24:42PM +0800, Tiwei Bie wrote:
> > > VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER was proposed recently to allow
> > > drivers to do some optimizations when devices are
> > > implemented in software. But it only covers barrier
> > > related optimizations. Later investigations show
> > > that, it could cover more. So this patch tweaks this
> > > feature bit to tell the driver whether it can assume
> > > the device is implemented in software and runs on
> > > host CPU, and also renames this feature bit to
> > > VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE correspondingly.
> > > 
> > > Suggested-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Tiwei Bie <tiwei.bie@intel.com>
> > > ---
> > >   content.tex | 22 ++++++++++------------
> > >   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/content.tex b/content.tex
> > > index be18234..5d6b977 100644
> > > --- a/content.tex
> > > +++ b/content.tex
> > > @@ -5356,15 +5356,13 @@ Descriptors} and \ref{sec:Packed Virtqueues / Indirect Flag: Scatter-Gather Supp
> > >     \item[VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER(35)] This feature indicates
> > >     that all buffers are used by the device in the same
> > >     order in which they have been made available.
> > > -  \item[VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER(36)] This feature indicates
> > > -  that the device needs the driver to use the barriers
> > > -  suitable for hardware devices.  Some transports require
> > > -  barriers to ensure devices have a consistent view of
> > > -  memory.  When devices are implemented in software a
> > > -  weaker form of barrier may be sufficient and yield
> > > +  \item[VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE(36)] This feature indicates
> > > +  that the device doesn't allow the driver to assume the
> > > +  device is implemented in software and runs on host CPU.
> > > +  When devices are implemented in software and run on host
> > > +  CPU, some optimizations can be done in drivers and yield
> > >     better performance.  This feature indicates whether
> > > -  a stronger form of barrier suitable for hardware
> > > -  devices is necessary.
> > > +  drivers can make this assumption.
> > >     \item[VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV(37)] This feature indicates that
> > >     the device supports Single Root I/O Virtualization.
> > >     Currently only PCI devices support this feature.
> > > @@ -5383,9 +5381,9 @@ addresses to the device.
> > >   A driver SHOULD accept VIRTIO_F_RING_PACKED if it is offered.
> > > -A driver SHOULD accept VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER if it is offered.
> > > -If VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER has been negotiated, a driver MUST use
> > > -the barriers suitable for hardware devices.
> > > +A driver SHOULD accept VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE if it is offered.
> > > +If VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE has been negotiated, a driver MUST NOT
> > > +assume the device is implemented in software and runs on host CPU.
> > >   \devicenormative{\section}{Reserved Feature Bits}{Reserved Feature Bits}
> > > @@ -5400,7 +5398,7 @@ accepted.
> > >   If VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER has been negotiated, a device MUST use
> > >   buffers in the same order in which they have been available.
> > > -A device MAY fail to operate further if VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER
> > > +A device MAY fail to operate further if VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE
> > >   is not accepted.
> > >   A device SHOULD offer VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV if it is a PCI device
> > 
> > I kind of dislike the REAL_DEVICE name.
> > 
> > At least part of the actual question, IMHO, is where is the device
> > located wrt memory that the driver shares with it.
> > 
> > This might include, but isn't necessarily limited to, device addressing
> > restrictions and cache synchronization.
> > 
> > As this patch correctly says, when virtio is used for host to hypervisor
> > communication, then I think it's easier to describe what is going on:
> > the device is actually implemented by another CPU just like the one
> > driver runs on that just happens not to be visible to the driver (I
> > don't think we need to try and define what host CPU is).
> > 
> > But what can we say when this isn't the case?  Maybe that a transport
> > and platform specific way should be used to discover the device location
> > and figure out a way to make memory contents visible to the device.
> > 
> > 
> > So - PLATFORM_LOCATION ? PLATFORM_DMA?
> > 
> > 
> > Also, how does all this interact with PLATFORM_IOMMU? Should we extend
> > PLATFORM_IOMMU to cover all addressing restrictions, and
> > PLATFORM_LOCATION (or whatever) to cover cache effects?
> > Then we might name it PLATFORM_CACHE. And where would encrypted
> > memory schemes such as SEV fit? Are they closer to PLATFORM_IOMMU?
> > 
> > Maybe we want to split it like this
> > - PLATFORM_IOMMU - extend to cover all platform addressing limitations
> > 	(which memory is accessible)
> > - IO_BARRIERS - extend to cover all platform cache synchronization effects
> > 	(which memory contents is visible)
> > ?
> > 
> > 
> > All this is based on the assumption that the optimizations do not ATM
> > apply to notifications. It seems that guests already do barriers around
> > these, anyway - even for hypervisor based devices.
> > It might be OK to ignore this in spec for now, but
> > I'd like to have this discussed at least in the commit log.
> > 
> 
> I agree with Michael, VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE does not seem to be a good
> name. And I agree with Michael, there is a lot's of stuff that should
> be clarified (in an ideal world).

Yeah, it's not a good patch (even for a RFC).. :(
I didn't have a good idea at that time, and I wasn't sure
when I could find a good one. So I sent this rough patch out
as a RFC to kick off the discussion after few days delay..
Your and Michael's comments are quite helpful! Thanks!

> 
> My understanding of what we currently do if PLATFORM_IOMMU is set,
> is use DMA API and allocate memory for the virtqueues with
> dma_alloc_coherent(). AFAIU the latter has implications on what can
> be assumed about caching. (Quote from Documentation/DMA-API.txt
> "Consistent memory is memory for which a write by either the device or
> the processor can immediately be read by the processor or device
> without having to worry about caching effects.  (You may however need
> to make sure to flush the processor's write buffers before telling
> devices to read that memory.)")

From my understanding, the problems about the platform's DMA
limitations (including bounce buffer, cache coherence, ...)
don't exist if the driver uses DMA API (vring_use_dma_api()
return true).

I'm trying to understand why driver needs vring_use_dma_api()
and why vring_use_dma_api() needs to return false in some
cases. By reading below commit in Linux:

1a937693993f ("virtio: new feature to detect IOMMU device quirk")

It seems that vring_use_dma_api() will return false only when
the device has an iommu quirk which tells that the device needs
to bypass the IOMMU.

So:

If the device doesn't have the quirk (i.e. the device doesn't
need to bypass the IOMMU), the driver will always use DMA API
(vring_use_dma_api() return true), and the problems about the
platform's DMA limitations don't exist.

If the system doesn't have an IOMMU, theoretically driver
can always use DMA API directly. And the problems about the
platform's DMA limitations won't exist.

If the system has an IOMMU and the device has the quirk,
(this is the only case that) the driver can't use DMA API
directly. And in this case, the driver shouldn't use the
IOMMU but still need to use DMA API.

That is to say, only the hardware virtio devices which have
the IOMMU quirk may not work on the platforms which have DMA
limitations. If we want to solve this problem, we need to
tweak this quirk (e.g. ask driver not to use IOMMU instead
of not to use DMA API).

Best regards,
Tiwei Bie

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [RFC] content: tweak VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 02:19:22AM +0800, Tiwei Bie wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 03:47:28PM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > On 06/25/2018 09:19 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 08:24:42PM +0800, Tiwei Bie wrote:
> > > > VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER was proposed recently to allow
> > > > drivers to do some optimizations when devices are
> > > > implemented in software. But it only covers barrier
> > > > related optimizations. Later investigations show
> > > > that, it could cover more. So this patch tweaks this
> > > > feature bit to tell the driver whether it can assume
> > > > the device is implemented in software and runs on
> > > > host CPU, and also renames this feature bit to
> > > > VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE correspondingly.
> > > > 
> > > > Suggested-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Tiwei Bie <tiwei.bie@intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >   content.tex | 22 ++++++++++------------
> > > >   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/content.tex b/content.tex
> > > > index be18234..5d6b977 100644
> > > > --- a/content.tex
> > > > +++ b/content.tex
> > > > @@ -5356,15 +5356,13 @@ Descriptors} and \ref{sec:Packed Virtqueues / Indirect Flag: Scatter-Gather Supp
> > > >     \item[VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER(35)] This feature indicates
> > > >     that all buffers are used by the device in the same
> > > >     order in which they have been made available.
> > > > -  \item[VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER(36)] This feature indicates
> > > > -  that the device needs the driver to use the barriers
> > > > -  suitable for hardware devices.  Some transports require
> > > > -  barriers to ensure devices have a consistent view of
> > > > -  memory.  When devices are implemented in software a
> > > > -  weaker form of barrier may be sufficient and yield
> > > > +  \item[VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE(36)] This feature indicates
> > > > +  that the device doesn't allow the driver to assume the
> > > > +  device is implemented in software and runs on host CPU.
> > > > +  When devices are implemented in software and run on host
> > > > +  CPU, some optimizations can be done in drivers and yield
> > > >     better performance.  This feature indicates whether
> > > > -  a stronger form of barrier suitable for hardware
> > > > -  devices is necessary.
> > > > +  drivers can make this assumption.
> > > >     \item[VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV(37)] This feature indicates that
> > > >     the device supports Single Root I/O Virtualization.
> > > >     Currently only PCI devices support this feature.
> > > > @@ -5383,9 +5381,9 @@ addresses to the device.
> > > >   A driver SHOULD accept VIRTIO_F_RING_PACKED if it is offered.
> > > > -A driver SHOULD accept VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER if it is offered.
> > > > -If VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER has been negotiated, a driver MUST use
> > > > -the barriers suitable for hardware devices.
> > > > +A driver SHOULD accept VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE if it is offered.
> > > > +If VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE has been negotiated, a driver MUST NOT
> > > > +assume the device is implemented in software and runs on host CPU.
> > > >   \devicenormative{\section}{Reserved Feature Bits}{Reserved Feature Bits}
> > > > @@ -5400,7 +5398,7 @@ accepted.
> > > >   If VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER has been negotiated, a device MUST use
> > > >   buffers in the same order in which they have been available.
> > > > -A device MAY fail to operate further if VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER
> > > > +A device MAY fail to operate further if VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE
> > > >   is not accepted.
> > > >   A device SHOULD offer VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV if it is a PCI device
> > > 
> > > I kind of dislike the REAL_DEVICE name.
> > > 
> > > At least part of the actual question, IMHO, is where is the device
> > > located wrt memory that the driver shares with it.
> > > 
> > > This might include, but isn't necessarily limited to, device addressing
> > > restrictions and cache synchronization.
> > > 
> > > As this patch correctly says, when virtio is used for host to hypervisor
> > > communication, then I think it's easier to describe what is going on:
> > > the device is actually implemented by another CPU just like the one
> > > driver runs on that just happens not to be visible to the driver (I
> > > don't think we need to try and define what host CPU is).
> > > 
> > > But what can we say when this isn't the case?  Maybe that a transport
> > > and platform specific way should be used to discover the device location
> > > and figure out a way to make memory contents visible to the device.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > So - PLATFORM_LOCATION ? PLATFORM_DMA?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Also, how does all this interact with PLATFORM_IOMMU? Should we extend
> > > PLATFORM_IOMMU to cover all addressing restrictions, and
> > > PLATFORM_LOCATION (or whatever) to cover cache effects?
> > > Then we might name it PLATFORM_CACHE. And where would encrypted
> > > memory schemes such as SEV fit? Are they closer to PLATFORM_IOMMU?
> > > 
> > > Maybe we want to split it like this
> > > - PLATFORM_IOMMU - extend to cover all platform addressing limitations
> > > 	(which memory is accessible)
> > > - IO_BARRIERS - extend to cover all platform cache synchronization effects
> > > 	(which memory contents is visible)
> > > ?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > All this is based on the assumption that the optimizations do not ATM
> > > apply to notifications. It seems that guests already do barriers around
> > > these, anyway - even for hypervisor based devices.
> > > It might be OK to ignore this in spec for now, but
> > > I'd like to have this discussed at least in the commit log.
> > > 
> > 
> > I agree with Michael, VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE does not seem to be a good
> > name. And I agree with Michael, there is a lot's of stuff that should
> > be clarified (in an ideal world).
> 
> Yeah, it's not a good patch (even for a RFC).. :(
> I didn't have a good idea at that time, and I wasn't sure
> when I could find a good one. So I sent this rough patch out
> as a RFC to kick off the discussion after few days delay..
> Your and Michael's comments are quite helpful! Thanks!
> 
> > 
> > My understanding of what we currently do if PLATFORM_IOMMU is set,
> > is use DMA API and allocate memory for the virtqueues with
> > dma_alloc_coherent(). AFAIU the latter has implications on what can
> > be assumed about caching. (Quote from Documentation/DMA-API.txt
> > "Consistent memory is memory for which a write by either the device or
> > the processor can immediately be read by the processor or device
> > without having to worry about caching effects.  (You may however need
> > to make sure to flush the processor's write buffers before telling
> > devices to read that memory.)")
> 
> >From my understanding, the problems about the platform's DMA
> limitations (including bounce buffer, cache coherence, ...)
> don't exist if the driver uses DMA API (vring_use_dma_api()
> return true).

Bounce buffer isn't a DMA limitation as such. It's a solution.

The limitation is typically in device addressing.  Does this therefore
belong in the PLATFORM_IOMMU or in a new bit?

> I'm trying to understand why driver needs vring_use_dma_api()
> and why vring_use_dma_api() needs to return false in some
> cases. By reading below commit in Linux:
> 
> 1a937693993f ("virtio: new feature to detect IOMMU device quirk")
> 
> It seems that vring_use_dma_api() will return false only when
> the device has an iommu quirk which tells that the device needs
> to bypass the IOMMU.
> So:
> 
> If the device doesn't have the quirk (i.e. the device doesn't
> need to bypass the IOMMU), the driver will always use DMA API
> (vring_use_dma_api() return true), and the problems about the
> platform's DMA limitations don't exist.
> 
> If the system doesn't have an IOMMU, theoretically driver
> can always use DMA API directly. And the problems about the
> platform's DMA limitations won't exist.
> 
> If the system has an IOMMU and the device has the quirk,
> (this is the only case that) the driver can't use DMA API
> directly. And in this case, the driver shouldn't use the
> IOMMU but still need to use DMA API.
> 
> That is to say, only the hardware virtio devices which have
> the IOMMU quirk may not work on the platforms which have DMA
> limitations. If we want to solve this problem, we need to
> tweak this quirk (e.g. ask driver not to use IOMMU instead
> of not to use DMA API).
> 
> Best regards,
> Tiwei Bie

So the specific reason we came up with PLATFORM_IOMMU is so that people
can do fine-grained security within guest, e.g. with userspace drivers.

ATM for linux drivers it has the effect of also enabling some
other DMA effects. Not all of them and not for userspace drivers.

But generally this seems to be the wrong forum to discuss linux
driver quirks.

-- 
MST

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [RFC] content: tweak VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER

[Cornelia Huck]

On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 21:39:22 +0300
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 02:19:22AM +0800, Tiwei Bie wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 03:47:28PM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote:  
> > > On 06/25/2018 09:19 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:  
> > > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 08:24:42PM +0800, Tiwei Bie wrote:  
> > > > > VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER was proposed recently to allow
> > > > > drivers to do some optimizations when devices are
> > > > > implemented in software. But it only covers barrier
> > > > > related optimizations. Later investigations show
> > > > > that, it could cover more. So this patch tweaks this
> > > > > feature bit to tell the driver whether it can assume
> > > > > the device is implemented in software and runs on
> > > > > host CPU, and also renames this feature bit to
> > > > > VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE correspondingly.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Suggested-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Tiwei Bie <tiwei.bie@intel.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >   content.tex | 22 ++++++++++------------
> > > > >   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/content.tex b/content.tex
> > > > > index be18234..5d6b977 100644
> > > > > --- a/content.tex
> > > > > +++ b/content.tex
> > > > > @@ -5356,15 +5356,13 @@ Descriptors} and \ref{sec:Packed Virtqueues / Indirect Flag: Scatter-Gather Supp
> > > > >     \item[VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER(35)] This feature indicates
> > > > >     that all buffers are used by the device in the same
> > > > >     order in which they have been made available.
> > > > > -  \item[VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER(36)] This feature indicates
> > > > > -  that the device needs the driver to use the barriers
> > > > > -  suitable for hardware devices.  Some transports require
> > > > > -  barriers to ensure devices have a consistent view of
> > > > > -  memory.  When devices are implemented in software a
> > > > > -  weaker form of barrier may be sufficient and yield
> > > > > +  \item[VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE(36)] This feature indicates
> > > > > +  that the device doesn't allow the driver to assume the
> > > > > +  device is implemented in software and runs on host CPU.
> > > > > +  When devices are implemented in software and run on host
> > > > > +  CPU, some optimizations can be done in drivers and yield
> > > > >     better performance.  This feature indicates whether
> > > > > -  a stronger form of barrier suitable for hardware
> > > > > -  devices is necessary.
> > > > > +  drivers can make this assumption.
> > > > >     \item[VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV(37)] This feature indicates that
> > > > >     the device supports Single Root I/O Virtualization.
> > > > >     Currently only PCI devices support this feature.
> > > > > @@ -5383,9 +5381,9 @@ addresses to the device.
> > > > >   A driver SHOULD accept VIRTIO_F_RING_PACKED if it is offered.
> > > > > -A driver SHOULD accept VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER if it is offered.
> > > > > -If VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER has been negotiated, a driver MUST use
> > > > > -the barriers suitable for hardware devices.
> > > > > +A driver SHOULD accept VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE if it is offered.
> > > > > +If VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE has been negotiated, a driver MUST NOT
> > > > > +assume the device is implemented in software and runs on host CPU.
> > > > >   \devicenormative{\section}{Reserved Feature Bits}{Reserved Feature Bits}
> > > > > @@ -5400,7 +5398,7 @@ accepted.
> > > > >   If VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER has been negotiated, a device MUST use
> > > > >   buffers in the same order in which they have been available.
> > > > > -A device MAY fail to operate further if VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER
> > > > > +A device MAY fail to operate further if VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE
> > > > >   is not accepted.
> > > > >   A device SHOULD offer VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV if it is a PCI device  
> > > > 
> > > > I kind of dislike the REAL_DEVICE name.
> > > > 
> > > > At least part of the actual question, IMHO, is where is the device
> > > > located wrt memory that the driver shares with it.
> > > > 
> > > > This might include, but isn't necessarily limited to, device addressing
> > > > restrictions and cache synchronization.
> > > > 
> > > > As this patch correctly says, when virtio is used for host to hypervisor
> > > > communication, then I think it's easier to describe what is going on:
> > > > the device is actually implemented by another CPU just like the one
> > > > driver runs on that just happens not to be visible to the driver (I
> > > > don't think we need to try and define what host CPU is).
> > > > 
> > > > But what can we say when this isn't the case?  Maybe that a transport
> > > > and platform specific way should be used to discover the device location
> > > > and figure out a way to make memory contents visible to the device.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > So - PLATFORM_LOCATION ? PLATFORM_DMA?
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Also, how does all this interact with PLATFORM_IOMMU? Should we extend
> > > > PLATFORM_IOMMU to cover all addressing restrictions, and
> > > > PLATFORM_LOCATION (or whatever) to cover cache effects?
> > > > Then we might name it PLATFORM_CACHE. And where would encrypted
> > > > memory schemes such as SEV fit? Are they closer to PLATFORM_IOMMU?
> > > > 
> > > > Maybe we want to split it like this
> > > > - PLATFORM_IOMMU - extend to cover all platform addressing limitations
> > > > 	(which memory is accessible)
> > > > - IO_BARRIERS - extend to cover all platform cache synchronization effects
> > > > 	(which memory contents is visible)
> > > > ?
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > All this is based on the assumption that the optimizations do not ATM
> > > > apply to notifications. It seems that guests already do barriers around
> > > > these, anyway - even for hypervisor based devices.
> > > > It might be OK to ignore this in spec for now, but
> > > > I'd like to have this discussed at least in the commit log.
> > > >   
> > > 
> > > I agree with Michael, VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE does not seem to be a good
> > > name. And I agree with Michael, there is a lot's of stuff that should
> > > be clarified (in an ideal world).  
> > 
> > Yeah, it's not a good patch (even for a RFC).. :(
> > I didn't have a good idea at that time, and I wasn't sure
> > when I could find a good one. So I sent this rough patch out
> > as a RFC to kick off the discussion after few days delay..
> > Your and Michael's comments are quite helpful! Thanks!
> >   
> > > 
> > > My understanding of what we currently do if PLATFORM_IOMMU is set,
> > > is use DMA API and allocate memory for the virtqueues with
> > > dma_alloc_coherent(). AFAIU the latter has implications on what can
> > > be assumed about caching. (Quote from Documentation/DMA-API.txt
> > > "Consistent memory is memory for which a write by either the device or
> > > the processor can immediately be read by the processor or device
> > > without having to worry about caching effects.  (You may however need
> > > to make sure to flush the processor's write buffers before telling
> > > devices to read that memory.)")  
> >   
> > >From my understanding, the problems about the platform's DMA  
> > limitations (including bounce buffer, cache coherence, ...)
> > don't exist if the driver uses DMA API (vring_use_dma_api()
> > return true).  
> 
> Bounce buffer isn't a DMA limitation as such. It's a solution.
> 
> The limitation is typically in device addressing.  Does this therefore
> belong in the PLATFORM_IOMMU or in a new bit?
> 
> > I'm trying to understand why driver needs vring_use_dma_api()
> > and why vring_use_dma_api() needs to return false in some
> > cases. By reading below commit in Linux:
> > 
> > 1a937693993f ("virtio: new feature to detect IOMMU device quirk")
> > 
> > It seems that vring_use_dma_api() will return false only when
> > the device has an iommu quirk which tells that the device needs
> > to bypass the IOMMU.
> > So:
> > 
> > If the device doesn't have the quirk (i.e. the device doesn't
> > need to bypass the IOMMU), the driver will always use DMA API
> > (vring_use_dma_api() return true), and the problems about the
> > platform's DMA limitations don't exist.
> > 
> > If the system doesn't have an IOMMU, theoretically driver
> > can always use DMA API directly. And the problems about the
> > platform's DMA limitations won't exist.
> > 
> > If the system has an IOMMU and the device has the quirk,
> > (this is the only case that) the driver can't use DMA API
> > directly. And in this case, the driver shouldn't use the
> > IOMMU but still need to use DMA API.
> > 
> > That is to say, only the hardware virtio devices which have
> > the IOMMU quirk may not work on the platforms which have DMA
> > limitations. If we want to solve this problem, we need to
> > tweak this quirk (e.g. ask driver not to use IOMMU instead
> > of not to use DMA API).
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > Tiwei Bie  
> 
> So the specific reason we came up with PLATFORM_IOMMU is so that people
> can do fine-grained security within guest, e.g. with userspace drivers.
> 
> ATM for linux drivers it has the effect of also enabling some
> other DMA effects. Not all of them and not for userspace drivers.
> 
> But generally this seems to be the wrong forum to discuss linux
> driver quirks.

So, do we still consider VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER useful with its current
definition? Do we need to clarify assumptions, start afresh, or add a
new feature? This is not clear to me from the discussion.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [RFC] content: tweak VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER

[Tiwei Bie]

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 06:08:03PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 21:39:22 +0300
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 02:19:22AM +0800, Tiwei Bie wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 03:47:28PM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote:  
> > > > On 06/25/2018 09:19 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:  
> > > > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 08:24:42PM +0800, Tiwei Bie wrote:  
> > > > > > VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER was proposed recently to allow
> > > > > > drivers to do some optimizations when devices are
> > > > > > implemented in software. But it only covers barrier
> > > > > > related optimizations. Later investigations show
> > > > > > that, it could cover more. So this patch tweaks this
> > > > > > feature bit to tell the driver whether it can assume
> > > > > > the device is implemented in software and runs on
> > > > > > host CPU, and also renames this feature bit to
> > > > > > VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE correspondingly.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Suggested-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Tiwei Bie <tiwei.bie@intel.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >   content.tex | 22 ++++++++++------------
> > > > > >   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > diff --git a/content.tex b/content.tex
> > > > > > index be18234..5d6b977 100644
> > > > > > --- a/content.tex
> > > > > > +++ b/content.tex
> > > > > > @@ -5356,15 +5356,13 @@ Descriptors} and \ref{sec:Packed Virtqueues / Indirect Flag: Scatter-Gather Supp
> > > > > >     \item[VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER(35)] This feature indicates
> > > > > >     that all buffers are used by the device in the same
> > > > > >     order in which they have been made available.
> > > > > > -  \item[VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER(36)] This feature indicates
> > > > > > -  that the device needs the driver to use the barriers
> > > > > > -  suitable for hardware devices.  Some transports require
> > > > > > -  barriers to ensure devices have a consistent view of
> > > > > > -  memory.  When devices are implemented in software a
> > > > > > -  weaker form of barrier may be sufficient and yield
> > > > > > +  \item[VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE(36)] This feature indicates
> > > > > > +  that the device doesn't allow the driver to assume the
> > > > > > +  device is implemented in software and runs on host CPU.
> > > > > > +  When devices are implemented in software and run on host
> > > > > > +  CPU, some optimizations can be done in drivers and yield
> > > > > >     better performance.  This feature indicates whether
> > > > > > -  a stronger form of barrier suitable for hardware
> > > > > > -  devices is necessary.
> > > > > > +  drivers can make this assumption.
> > > > > >     \item[VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV(37)] This feature indicates that
> > > > > >     the device supports Single Root I/O Virtualization.
> > > > > >     Currently only PCI devices support this feature.
> > > > > > @@ -5383,9 +5381,9 @@ addresses to the device.
> > > > > >   A driver SHOULD accept VIRTIO_F_RING_PACKED if it is offered.
> > > > > > -A driver SHOULD accept VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER if it is offered.
> > > > > > -If VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER has been negotiated, a driver MUST use
> > > > > > -the barriers suitable for hardware devices.
> > > > > > +A driver SHOULD accept VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE if it is offered.
> > > > > > +If VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE has been negotiated, a driver MUST NOT
> > > > > > +assume the device is implemented in software and runs on host CPU.
> > > > > >   \devicenormative{\section}{Reserved Feature Bits}{Reserved Feature Bits}
> > > > > > @@ -5400,7 +5398,7 @@ accepted.
> > > > > >   If VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER has been negotiated, a device MUST use
> > > > > >   buffers in the same order in which they have been available.
> > > > > > -A device MAY fail to operate further if VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER
> > > > > > +A device MAY fail to operate further if VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE
> > > > > >   is not accepted.
> > > > > >   A device SHOULD offer VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV if it is a PCI device  
> > > > > 
> > > > > I kind of dislike the REAL_DEVICE name.
> > > > > 
> > > > > At least part of the actual question, IMHO, is where is the device
> > > > > located wrt memory that the driver shares with it.
> > > > > 
> > > > > This might include, but isn't necessarily limited to, device addressing
> > > > > restrictions and cache synchronization.
> > > > > 
> > > > > As this patch correctly says, when virtio is used for host to hypervisor
> > > > > communication, then I think it's easier to describe what is going on:
> > > > > the device is actually implemented by another CPU just like the one
> > > > > driver runs on that just happens not to be visible to the driver (I
> > > > > don't think we need to try and define what host CPU is).
> > > > > 
> > > > > But what can we say when this isn't the case?  Maybe that a transport
> > > > > and platform specific way should be used to discover the device location
> > > > > and figure out a way to make memory contents visible to the device.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > So - PLATFORM_LOCATION ? PLATFORM_DMA?
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Also, how does all this interact with PLATFORM_IOMMU? Should we extend
> > > > > PLATFORM_IOMMU to cover all addressing restrictions, and
> > > > > PLATFORM_LOCATION (or whatever) to cover cache effects?
> > > > > Then we might name it PLATFORM_CACHE. And where would encrypted
> > > > > memory schemes such as SEV fit? Are they closer to PLATFORM_IOMMU?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Maybe we want to split it like this
> > > > > - PLATFORM_IOMMU - extend to cover all platform addressing limitations
> > > > > 	(which memory is accessible)
> > > > > - IO_BARRIERS - extend to cover all platform cache synchronization effects
> > > > > 	(which memory contents is visible)
> > > > > ?
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > All this is based on the assumption that the optimizations do not ATM
> > > > > apply to notifications. It seems that guests already do barriers around
> > > > > these, anyway - even for hypervisor based devices.
> > > > > It might be OK to ignore this in spec for now, but
> > > > > I'd like to have this discussed at least in the commit log.
> > > > >   
> > > > 
> > > > I agree with Michael, VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE does not seem to be a good
> > > > name. And I agree with Michael, there is a lot's of stuff that should
> > > > be clarified (in an ideal world).  
> > > 
> > > Yeah, it's not a good patch (even for a RFC).. :(
> > > I didn't have a good idea at that time, and I wasn't sure
> > > when I could find a good one. So I sent this rough patch out
> > > as a RFC to kick off the discussion after few days delay..
> > > Your and Michael's comments are quite helpful! Thanks!
> > >   
> > > > 
> > > > My understanding of what we currently do if PLATFORM_IOMMU is set,
> > > > is use DMA API and allocate memory for the virtqueues with
> > > > dma_alloc_coherent(). AFAIU the latter has implications on what can
> > > > be assumed about caching. (Quote from Documentation/DMA-API.txt
> > > > "Consistent memory is memory for which a write by either the device or
> > > > the processor can immediately be read by the processor or device
> > > > without having to worry about caching effects.  (You may however need
> > > > to make sure to flush the processor's write buffers before telling
> > > > devices to read that memory.)")  
> > >   
> > > >From my understanding, the problems about the platform's DMA  
> > > limitations (including bounce buffer, cache coherence, ...)
> > > don't exist if the driver uses DMA API (vring_use_dma_api()
> > > return true).  
> > 
> > Bounce buffer isn't a DMA limitation as such. It's a solution.
> > 
> > The limitation is typically in device addressing.  Does this therefore
> > belong in the PLATFORM_IOMMU or in a new bit?
> > 
> > > I'm trying to understand why driver needs vring_use_dma_api()
> > > and why vring_use_dma_api() needs to return false in some
> > > cases. By reading below commit in Linux:
> > > 
> > > 1a937693993f ("virtio: new feature to detect IOMMU device quirk")
> > > 
> > > It seems that vring_use_dma_api() will return false only when
> > > the device has an iommu quirk which tells that the device needs
> > > to bypass the IOMMU.
> > > So:
> > > 
> > > If the device doesn't have the quirk (i.e. the device doesn't
> > > need to bypass the IOMMU), the driver will always use DMA API
> > > (vring_use_dma_api() return true), and the problems about the
> > > platform's DMA limitations don't exist.
> > > 
> > > If the system doesn't have an IOMMU, theoretically driver
> > > can always use DMA API directly. And the problems about the
> > > platform's DMA limitations won't exist.
> > > 
> > > If the system has an IOMMU and the device has the quirk,
> > > (this is the only case that) the driver can't use DMA API
> > > directly. And in this case, the driver shouldn't use the
> > > IOMMU but still need to use DMA API.
> > > 
> > > That is to say, only the hardware virtio devices which have
> > > the IOMMU quirk may not work on the platforms which have DMA
> > > limitations. If we want to solve this problem, we need to
> > > tweak this quirk (e.g. ask driver not to use IOMMU instead
> > > of not to use DMA API).
> > > 
> > > Best regards,
> > > Tiwei Bie  
> > 
> > So the specific reason we came up with PLATFORM_IOMMU is so that people
> > can do fine-grained security within guest, e.g. with userspace drivers.
> > 
> > ATM for linux drivers it has the effect of also enabling some
> > other DMA effects. Not all of them and not for userspace drivers.
> > 
> > But generally this seems to be the wrong forum to discuss linux
> > driver quirks.
> 
> So, do we still consider VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER useful with its current
> definition? Do we need to clarify assumptions, start afresh, or add a
> new feature? This is not clear to me from the discussion.

The discussion is to talk about how to fix the potential
problems that currently may happen when the virtio devices
(which need to bypass the IOMMU) work on the platforms
(which have DMA limitations).

Currently,

- IO_BARRIER is just to tell drivers which type of barriers
  should be used.

- IOMMU_PLATFORM (from my understanding) is to tell drivers
  whether the devices need to bypass the IOMMU.

Michael is asking whether we should tweak above two bits
or whether we should do something else to solve this problem.

If we want to tweak above two bits, they may become
something like:

- PLATFORM_CACHE (from IO_BARRIER): about the memory
   operations visibility between driver and device.

- PLATFORM_IOMMU (from IOMMU_PLATFORM): about whether
   the DMA addr passed to the device should be prepared
   (because e.g. the device is behind an IOMMU, or the
   device can only access parts of system memory).

Currently, I don't know what's the best choice..

Best regards,
Tiwei Bie

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [RFC] content: tweak VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER

[Jason Wang]

On 2018年06月28日 16:52, Tiwei Bie wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 06:08:03PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 21:39:22 +0300
>> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 02:19:22AM +0800, Tiwei Bie wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 03:47:28PM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote:
>>>>> On 06/25/2018 09:19 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 08:24:42PM +0800, Tiwei Bie wrote:
>>>>>>> VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER was proposed recently to allow
>>>>>>> drivers to do some optimizations when devices are
>>>>>>> implemented in software. But it only covers barrier
>>>>>>> related optimizations. Later investigations show
>>>>>>> that, it could cover more. So this patch tweaks this
>>>>>>> feature bit to tell the driver whether it can assume
>>>>>>> the device is implemented in software and runs on
>>>>>>> host CPU, and also renames this feature bit to
>>>>>>> VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE correspondingly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Suggested-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tiwei Bie <tiwei.bie@intel.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>    content.tex | 22 ++++++++++------------
>>>>>>>    1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/content.tex b/content.tex
>>>>>>> index be18234..5d6b977 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/content.tex
>>>>>>> +++ b/content.tex
>>>>>>> @@ -5356,15 +5356,13 @@ Descriptors} and \ref{sec:Packed Virtqueues / Indirect Flag: Scatter-Gather Supp
>>>>>>>      \item[VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER(35)] This feature indicates
>>>>>>>      that all buffers are used by the device in the same
>>>>>>>      order in which they have been made available.
>>>>>>> -  \item[VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER(36)] This feature indicates
>>>>>>> -  that the device needs the driver to use the barriers
>>>>>>> -  suitable for hardware devices.  Some transports require
>>>>>>> -  barriers to ensure devices have a consistent view of
>>>>>>> -  memory.  When devices are implemented in software a
>>>>>>> -  weaker form of barrier may be sufficient and yield
>>>>>>> +  \item[VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE(36)] This feature indicates
>>>>>>> +  that the device doesn't allow the driver to assume the
>>>>>>> +  device is implemented in software and runs on host CPU.
>>>>>>> +  When devices are implemented in software and run on host
>>>>>>> +  CPU, some optimizations can be done in drivers and yield
>>>>>>>      better performance.  This feature indicates whether
>>>>>>> -  a stronger form of barrier suitable for hardware
>>>>>>> -  devices is necessary.
>>>>>>> +  drivers can make this assumption.
>>>>>>>      \item[VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV(37)] This feature indicates that
>>>>>>>      the device supports Single Root I/O Virtualization.
>>>>>>>      Currently only PCI devices support this feature.
>>>>>>> @@ -5383,9 +5381,9 @@ addresses to the device.
>>>>>>>    A driver SHOULD accept VIRTIO_F_RING_PACKED if it is offered.
>>>>>>> -A driver SHOULD accept VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER if it is offered.
>>>>>>> -If VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER has been negotiated, a driver MUST use
>>>>>>> -the barriers suitable for hardware devices.
>>>>>>> +A driver SHOULD accept VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE if it is offered.
>>>>>>> +If VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE has been negotiated, a driver MUST NOT
>>>>>>> +assume the device is implemented in software and runs on host CPU.
>>>>>>>    \devicenormative{\section}{Reserved Feature Bits}{Reserved Feature Bits}
>>>>>>> @@ -5400,7 +5398,7 @@ accepted.
>>>>>>>    If VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER has been negotiated, a device MUST use
>>>>>>>    buffers in the same order in which they have been available.
>>>>>>> -A device MAY fail to operate further if VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER
>>>>>>> +A device MAY fail to operate further if VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE
>>>>>>>    is not accepted.
>>>>>>>    A device SHOULD offer VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV if it is a PCI device
>>>>>> I kind of dislike the REAL_DEVICE name.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At least part of the actual question, IMHO, is where is the device
>>>>>> located wrt memory that the driver shares with it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This might include, but isn't necessarily limited to, device addressing
>>>>>> restrictions and cache synchronization.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As this patch correctly says, when virtio is used for host to hypervisor
>>>>>> communication, then I think it's easier to describe what is going on:
>>>>>> the device is actually implemented by another CPU just like the one
>>>>>> driver runs on that just happens not to be visible to the driver (I
>>>>>> don't think we need to try and define what host CPU is).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But what can we say when this isn't the case?  Maybe that a transport
>>>>>> and platform specific way should be used to discover the device location
>>>>>> and figure out a way to make memory contents visible to the device.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So - PLATFORM_LOCATION ? PLATFORM_DMA?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, how does all this interact with PLATFORM_IOMMU? Should we extend
>>>>>> PLATFORM_IOMMU to cover all addressing restrictions, and
>>>>>> PLATFORM_LOCATION (or whatever) to cover cache effects?
>>>>>> Then we might name it PLATFORM_CACHE. And where would encrypted
>>>>>> memory schemes such as SEV fit? Are they closer to PLATFORM_IOMMU?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe we want to split it like this
>>>>>> - PLATFORM_IOMMU - extend to cover all platform addressing limitations
>>>>>> 	(which memory is accessible)
>>>>>> - IO_BARRIERS - extend to cover all platform cache synchronization effects
>>>>>> 	(which memory contents is visible)
>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All this is based on the assumption that the optimizations do not ATM
>>>>>> apply to notifications. It seems that guests already do barriers around
>>>>>> these, anyway - even for hypervisor based devices.
>>>>>> It might be OK to ignore this in spec for now, but
>>>>>> I'd like to have this discussed at least in the commit log.
>>>>>>    
>>>>> I agree with Michael, VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE does not seem to be a good
>>>>> name. And I agree with Michael, there is a lot's of stuff that should
>>>>> be clarified (in an ideal world).
>>>> Yeah, it's not a good patch (even for a RFC).. :(
>>>> I didn't have a good idea at that time, and I wasn't sure
>>>> when I could find a good one. So I sent this rough patch out
>>>> as a RFC to kick off the discussion after few days delay..
>>>> Your and Michael's comments are quite helpful! Thanks!
>>>>    
>>>>> My understanding of what we currently do if PLATFORM_IOMMU is set,
>>>>> is use DMA API and allocate memory for the virtqueues with
>>>>> dma_alloc_coherent(). AFAIU the latter has implications on what can
>>>>> be assumed about caching. (Quote from Documentation/DMA-API.txt
>>>>> "Consistent memory is memory for which a write by either the device or
>>>>> the processor can immediately be read by the processor or device
>>>>> without having to worry about caching effects.  (You may however need
>>>>> to make sure to flush the processor's write buffers before telling
>>>>> devices to read that memory.)")
>>>>    
>>>> >From my understanding, the problems about the platform's DMA  
>>>> limitations (including bounce buffer, cache coherence, ...)
>>>> don't exist if the driver uses DMA API (vring_use_dma_api()
>>>> return true).
>>> Bounce buffer isn't a DMA limitation as such. It's a solution.
>>>
>>> The limitation is typically in device addressing.  Does this therefore
>>> belong in the PLATFORM_IOMMU or in a new bit?
>>>
>>>> I'm trying to understand why driver needs vring_use_dma_api()
>>>> and why vring_use_dma_api() needs to return false in some
>>>> cases. By reading below commit in Linux:
>>>>
>>>> 1a937693993f ("virtio: new feature to detect IOMMU device quirk")
>>>>
>>>> It seems that vring_use_dma_api() will return false only when
>>>> the device has an iommu quirk which tells that the device needs
>>>> to bypass the IOMMU.
>>>> So:
>>>>
>>>> If the device doesn't have the quirk (i.e. the device doesn't
>>>> need to bypass the IOMMU), the driver will always use DMA API
>>>> (vring_use_dma_api() return true), and the problems about the
>>>> platform's DMA limitations don't exist.
>>>>
>>>> If the system doesn't have an IOMMU, theoretically driver
>>>> can always use DMA API directly. And the problems about the
>>>> platform's DMA limitations won't exist.
>>>>
>>>> If the system has an IOMMU and the device has the quirk,
>>>> (this is the only case that) the driver can't use DMA API
>>>> directly. And in this case, the driver shouldn't use the
>>>> IOMMU but still need to use DMA API.
>>>>
>>>> That is to say, only the hardware virtio devices which have
>>>> the IOMMU quirk may not work on the platforms which have DMA
>>>> limitations. If we want to solve this problem, we need to
>>>> tweak this quirk (e.g. ask driver not to use IOMMU instead
>>>> of not to use DMA API).
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Tiwei Bie
>>> So the specific reason we came up with PLATFORM_IOMMU is so that people
>>> can do fine-grained security within guest, e.g. with userspace drivers.
>>>
>>> ATM for linux drivers it has the effect of also enabling some
>>> other DMA effects. Not all of them and not for userspace drivers.
>>>
>>> But generally this seems to be the wrong forum to discuss linux
>>> driver quirks.
>> So, do we still consider VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER useful with its current
>> definition? Do we need to clarify assumptions, start afresh, or add a
>> new feature? This is not clear to me from the discussion.
> The discussion is to talk about how to fix the potential
> problems that currently may happen when the virtio devices
> (which need to bypass the IOMMU) work on the platforms
> (which have DMA limitations).
>
> Currently,
>
> - IO_BARRIER is just to tell drivers which type of barriers
>    should be used.
>
> - IOMMU_PLATFORM (from my understanding) is to tell drivers
>    whether the devices need to bypass the IOMMU.
>
> Michael is asking whether we should tweak above two bits
> or whether we should do something else to solve this problem.
>
> If we want to tweak above two bits, they may become
> something like:
>
> - PLATFORM_CACHE (from IO_BARRIER): about the memory
>     operations visibility between driver and device.

One issue here is sometime we may have something like a software IOTLB 
which is transparent to device. Just infer from the name of 
PLATFORM_CACHE, it seems does not cover this case.

>
> - PLATFORM_IOMMU (from IOMMU_PLATFORM): about whether
>     the DMA addr passed to the device should be prepared
>     (because e.g. the device is behind an IOMMU, or the
>     device can only access parts of system memory).

So I think it's a bug of driver instead of a missing feature. We can 
even fail the device probe in this case for safety.

Thanks

>
> Currently, I don't know what's the best choice..
>
> Best regards,
> Tiwei Bie
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [RFC] content: tweak VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 08:56:33PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2018年06月28日 16:52, Tiwei Bie wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 06:08:03PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > > On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 21:39:22 +0300
> > > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 02:19:22AM +0800, Tiwei Bie wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 03:47:28PM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > > > > > On 06/25/2018 09:19 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 08:24:42PM +0800, Tiwei Bie wrote:
> > > > > > > > VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER was proposed recently to allow
> > > > > > > > drivers to do some optimizations when devices are
> > > > > > > > implemented in software. But it only covers barrier
> > > > > > > > related optimizations. Later investigations show
> > > > > > > > that, it could cover more. So this patch tweaks this
> > > > > > > > feature bit to tell the driver whether it can assume
> > > > > > > > the device is implemented in software and runs on
> > > > > > > > host CPU, and also renames this feature bit to
> > > > > > > > VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE correspondingly.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Suggested-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Tiwei Bie <tiwei.bie@intel.com>
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > >    content.tex | 22 ++++++++++------------
> > > > > > > >    1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > diff --git a/content.tex b/content.tex
> > > > > > > > index be18234..5d6b977 100644
> > > > > > > > --- a/content.tex
> > > > > > > > +++ b/content.tex
> > > > > > > > @@ -5356,15 +5356,13 @@ Descriptors} and \ref{sec:Packed Virtqueues / Indirect Flag: Scatter-Gather Supp
> > > > > > > >      \item[VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER(35)] This feature indicates
> > > > > > > >      that all buffers are used by the device in the same
> > > > > > > >      order in which they have been made available.
> > > > > > > > -  \item[VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER(36)] This feature indicates
> > > > > > > > -  that the device needs the driver to use the barriers
> > > > > > > > -  suitable for hardware devices.  Some transports require
> > > > > > > > -  barriers to ensure devices have a consistent view of
> > > > > > > > -  memory.  When devices are implemented in software a
> > > > > > > > -  weaker form of barrier may be sufficient and yield
> > > > > > > > +  \item[VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE(36)] This feature indicates
> > > > > > > > +  that the device doesn't allow the driver to assume the
> > > > > > > > +  device is implemented in software and runs on host CPU.
> > > > > > > > +  When devices are implemented in software and run on host
> > > > > > > > +  CPU, some optimizations can be done in drivers and yield
> > > > > > > >      better performance.  This feature indicates whether
> > > > > > > > -  a stronger form of barrier suitable for hardware
> > > > > > > > -  devices is necessary.
> > > > > > > > +  drivers can make this assumption.
> > > > > > > >      \item[VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV(37)] This feature indicates that
> > > > > > > >      the device supports Single Root I/O Virtualization.
> > > > > > > >      Currently only PCI devices support this feature.
> > > > > > > > @@ -5383,9 +5381,9 @@ addresses to the device.
> > > > > > > >    A driver SHOULD accept VIRTIO_F_RING_PACKED if it is offered.
> > > > > > > > -A driver SHOULD accept VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER if it is offered.
> > > > > > > > -If VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER has been negotiated, a driver MUST use
> > > > > > > > -the barriers suitable for hardware devices.
> > > > > > > > +A driver SHOULD accept VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE if it is offered.
> > > > > > > > +If VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE has been negotiated, a driver MUST NOT
> > > > > > > > +assume the device is implemented in software and runs on host CPU.
> > > > > > > >    \devicenormative{\section}{Reserved Feature Bits}{Reserved Feature Bits}
> > > > > > > > @@ -5400,7 +5398,7 @@ accepted.
> > > > > > > >    If VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER has been negotiated, a device MUST use
> > > > > > > >    buffers in the same order in which they have been available.
> > > > > > > > -A device MAY fail to operate further if VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER
> > > > > > > > +A device MAY fail to operate further if VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE
> > > > > > > >    is not accepted.
> > > > > > > >    A device SHOULD offer VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV if it is a PCI device
> > > > > > > I kind of dislike the REAL_DEVICE name.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > At least part of the actual question, IMHO, is where is the device
> > > > > > > located wrt memory that the driver shares with it.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > This might include, but isn't necessarily limited to, device addressing
> > > > > > > restrictions and cache synchronization.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > As this patch correctly says, when virtio is used for host to hypervisor
> > > > > > > communication, then I think it's easier to describe what is going on:
> > > > > > > the device is actually implemented by another CPU just like the one
> > > > > > > driver runs on that just happens not to be visible to the driver (I
> > > > > > > don't think we need to try and define what host CPU is).
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > But what can we say when this isn't the case?  Maybe that a transport
> > > > > > > and platform specific way should be used to discover the device location
> > > > > > > and figure out a way to make memory contents visible to the device.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > So - PLATFORM_LOCATION ? PLATFORM_DMA?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Also, how does all this interact with PLATFORM_IOMMU? Should we extend
> > > > > > > PLATFORM_IOMMU to cover all addressing restrictions, and
> > > > > > > PLATFORM_LOCATION (or whatever) to cover cache effects?
> > > > > > > Then we might name it PLATFORM_CACHE. And where would encrypted
> > > > > > > memory schemes such as SEV fit? Are they closer to PLATFORM_IOMMU?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Maybe we want to split it like this
> > > > > > > - PLATFORM_IOMMU - extend to cover all platform addressing limitations
> > > > > > > 	(which memory is accessible)
> > > > > > > - IO_BARRIERS - extend to cover all platform cache synchronization effects
> > > > > > > 	(which memory contents is visible)
> > > > > > > ?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > All this is based on the assumption that the optimizations do not ATM
> > > > > > > apply to notifications. It seems that guests already do barriers around
> > > > > > > these, anyway - even for hypervisor based devices.
> > > > > > > It might be OK to ignore this in spec for now, but
> > > > > > > I'd like to have this discussed at least in the commit log.
> > > > > > I agree with Michael, VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE does not seem to be a good
> > > > > > name. And I agree with Michael, there is a lot's of stuff that should
> > > > > > be clarified (in an ideal world).
> > > > > Yeah, it's not a good patch (even for a RFC).. :(
> > > > > I didn't have a good idea at that time, and I wasn't sure
> > > > > when I could find a good one. So I sent this rough patch out
> > > > > as a RFC to kick off the discussion after few days delay..
> > > > > Your and Michael's comments are quite helpful! Thanks!
> > > > > > My understanding of what we currently do if PLATFORM_IOMMU is set,
> > > > > > is use DMA API and allocate memory for the virtqueues with
> > > > > > dma_alloc_coherent(). AFAIU the latter has implications on what can
> > > > > > be assumed about caching. (Quote from Documentation/DMA-API.txt
> > > > > > "Consistent memory is memory for which a write by either the device or
> > > > > > the processor can immediately be read by the processor or device
> > > > > > without having to worry about caching effects.  (You may however need
> > > > > > to make sure to flush the processor's write buffers before telling
> > > > > > devices to read that memory.)")
> > > > >     >From my understanding, the problems about the
> > > > > platform's DMA  limitations (including bounce buffer, cache
> > > > > coherence, ...)
> > > > > don't exist if the driver uses DMA API (vring_use_dma_api()
> > > > > return true).
> > > > Bounce buffer isn't a DMA limitation as such. It's a solution.
> > > > 
> > > > The limitation is typically in device addressing.  Does this therefore
> > > > belong in the PLATFORM_IOMMU or in a new bit?
> > > > 
> > > > > I'm trying to understand why driver needs vring_use_dma_api()
> > > > > and why vring_use_dma_api() needs to return false in some
> > > > > cases. By reading below commit in Linux:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 1a937693993f ("virtio: new feature to detect IOMMU device quirk")
> > > > > 
> > > > > It seems that vring_use_dma_api() will return false only when
> > > > > the device has an iommu quirk which tells that the device needs
> > > > > to bypass the IOMMU.
> > > > > So:
> > > > > 
> > > > > If the device doesn't have the quirk (i.e. the device doesn't
> > > > > need to bypass the IOMMU), the driver will always use DMA API
> > > > > (vring_use_dma_api() return true), and the problems about the
> > > > > platform's DMA limitations don't exist.
> > > > > 
> > > > > If the system doesn't have an IOMMU, theoretically driver
> > > > > can always use DMA API directly. And the problems about the
> > > > > platform's DMA limitations won't exist.
> > > > > 
> > > > > If the system has an IOMMU and the device has the quirk,
> > > > > (this is the only case that) the driver can't use DMA API
> > > > > directly. And in this case, the driver shouldn't use the
> > > > > IOMMU but still need to use DMA API.
> > > > > 
> > > > > That is to say, only the hardware virtio devices which have
> > > > > the IOMMU quirk may not work on the platforms which have DMA
> > > > > limitations. If we want to solve this problem, we need to
> > > > > tweak this quirk (e.g. ask driver not to use IOMMU instead
> > > > > of not to use DMA API).
> > > > > 
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Tiwei Bie
> > > > So the specific reason we came up with PLATFORM_IOMMU is so that people
> > > > can do fine-grained security within guest, e.g. with userspace drivers.
> > > > 
> > > > ATM for linux drivers it has the effect of also enabling some
> > > > other DMA effects. Not all of them and not for userspace drivers.
> > > > 
> > > > But generally this seems to be the wrong forum to discuss linux
> > > > driver quirks.
> > > So, do we still consider VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER useful with its current
> > > definition? Do we need to clarify assumptions, start afresh, or add a
> > > new feature? This is not clear to me from the discussion.
> > The discussion is to talk about how to fix the potential
> > problems that currently may happen when the virtio devices
> > (which need to bypass the IOMMU) work on the platforms
> > (which have DMA limitations).
> > 
> > Currently,
> > 
> > - IO_BARRIER is just to tell drivers which type of barriers
> >    should be used.
> > 
> > - IOMMU_PLATFORM (from my understanding) is to tell drivers
> >    whether the devices need to bypass the IOMMU.
> > 
> > Michael is asking whether we should tweak above two bits
> > or whether we should do something else to solve this problem.
> > 
> > If we want to tweak above two bits, they may become
> > something like:
> > 
> > - PLATFORM_CACHE (from IO_BARRIER): about the memory
> >     operations visibility between driver and device.
> 
> One issue here is sometime we may have something like a software IOTLB which
> is transparent to device. Just infer from the name of PLATFORM_CACHE, it
> seems does not cover this case.

I don't think device needs to know about that.
That's up to driver/OS.

> > 
> > - PLATFORM_IOMMU (from IOMMU_PLATFORM): about whether
> >     the DMA addr passed to the device should be prepared
> >     (because e.g. the device is behind an IOMMU, or the
> >     device can only access parts of system memory).
> 
> So I think it's a bug of driver instead of a missing feature.

what is?


> We can even
> fail the device probe in this case for safety.
> 
> Thanks

device can and does.

> > 
> > Currently, I don't know what's the best choice..
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > Tiwei Bie
> > 
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org
> > 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [RFC] content: tweak VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER

[Jason Wang]

On 2018年06月29日 12:21, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> The discussion is to talk about how to fix the potential
>>> problems that currently may happen when the virtio devices
>>> (which need to bypass the IOMMU) work on the platforms
>>> (which have DMA limitations).
>>>
>>> Currently,
>>>
>>> - IO_BARRIER is just to tell drivers which type of barriers
>>>     should be used.
>>>
>>> - IOMMU_PLATFORM (from my understanding) is to tell drivers
>>>     whether the devices need to bypass the IOMMU.
>>>
>>> Michael is asking whether we should tweak above two bits
>>> or whether we should do something else to solve this problem.
>>>
>>> If we want to tweak above two bits, they may become
>>> something like:
>>>
>>> - PLATFORM_CACHE (from IO_BARRIER): about the memory
>>>      operations visibility between driver and device.
>> One issue here is sometime we may have something like a software IOTLB which
>> is transparent to device. Just infer from the name of PLATFORM_CACHE, it
>> seems does not cover this case.
> I don't think device needs to know about that.
> That's up to driver/OS.

So the question is can driver get those limitations or requirements 
through a transport specific way instead of depending a feature. If we 
define a feature that does not cover all the cases, we probably need 
another one to fix it. That's suboptimal.

>
>>> - PLATFORM_IOMMU (from IOMMU_PLATFORM): about whether
>>>      the DMA addr passed to the device should be prepared
>>>      (because e.g. the device is behind an IOMMU, or the
>>>      device can only access parts of system memory).
>> So I think it's a bug of driver instead of a missing feature.
> what is?

I mean it was probably a bug that we must specify PLATFORM_IOMMU to use 
swiotlb.

>
>
>> We can even
>> fail the device probe in this case for safety.
>>
>> Thanks
> device can and does.

Yes.

Thanks

>
>>> Currently, I don't know what's the best choice..
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Tiwei Bie


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [RFC] content: tweak VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 04:52:35PM +0800, Tiwei Bie wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 06:08:03PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 21:39:22 +0300
> > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 02:19:22AM +0800, Tiwei Bie wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 03:47:28PM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote:  
> > > > > On 06/25/2018 09:19 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:  
> > > > > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 08:24:42PM +0800, Tiwei Bie wrote:  
> > > > > > > VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER was proposed recently to allow
> > > > > > > drivers to do some optimizations when devices are
> > > > > > > implemented in software. But it only covers barrier
> > > > > > > related optimizations. Later investigations show
> > > > > > > that, it could cover more. So this patch tweaks this
> > > > > > > feature bit to tell the driver whether it can assume
> > > > > > > the device is implemented in software and runs on
> > > > > > > host CPU, and also renames this feature bit to
> > > > > > > VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE correspondingly.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Suggested-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Tiwei Bie <tiwei.bie@intel.com>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > >   content.tex | 22 ++++++++++------------
> > > > > > >   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > diff --git a/content.tex b/content.tex
> > > > > > > index be18234..5d6b977 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/content.tex
> > > > > > > +++ b/content.tex
> > > > > > > @@ -5356,15 +5356,13 @@ Descriptors} and \ref{sec:Packed Virtqueues / Indirect Flag: Scatter-Gather Supp
> > > > > > >     \item[VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER(35)] This feature indicates
> > > > > > >     that all buffers are used by the device in the same
> > > > > > >     order in which they have been made available.
> > > > > > > -  \item[VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER(36)] This feature indicates
> > > > > > > -  that the device needs the driver to use the barriers
> > > > > > > -  suitable for hardware devices.  Some transports require
> > > > > > > -  barriers to ensure devices have a consistent view of
> > > > > > > -  memory.  When devices are implemented in software a
> > > > > > > -  weaker form of barrier may be sufficient and yield
> > > > > > > +  \item[VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE(36)] This feature indicates
> > > > > > > +  that the device doesn't allow the driver to assume the
> > > > > > > +  device is implemented in software and runs on host CPU.
> > > > > > > +  When devices are implemented in software and run on host
> > > > > > > +  CPU, some optimizations can be done in drivers and yield
> > > > > > >     better performance.  This feature indicates whether
> > > > > > > -  a stronger form of barrier suitable for hardware
> > > > > > > -  devices is necessary.
> > > > > > > +  drivers can make this assumption.
> > > > > > >     \item[VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV(37)] This feature indicates that
> > > > > > >     the device supports Single Root I/O Virtualization.
> > > > > > >     Currently only PCI devices support this feature.
> > > > > > > @@ -5383,9 +5381,9 @@ addresses to the device.
> > > > > > >   A driver SHOULD accept VIRTIO_F_RING_PACKED if it is offered.
> > > > > > > -A driver SHOULD accept VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER if it is offered.
> > > > > > > -If VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER has been negotiated, a driver MUST use
> > > > > > > -the barriers suitable for hardware devices.
> > > > > > > +A driver SHOULD accept VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE if it is offered.
> > > > > > > +If VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE has been negotiated, a driver MUST NOT
> > > > > > > +assume the device is implemented in software and runs on host CPU.
> > > > > > >   \devicenormative{\section}{Reserved Feature Bits}{Reserved Feature Bits}
> > > > > > > @@ -5400,7 +5398,7 @@ accepted.
> > > > > > >   If VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER has been negotiated, a device MUST use
> > > > > > >   buffers in the same order in which they have been available.
> > > > > > > -A device MAY fail to operate further if VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER
> > > > > > > +A device MAY fail to operate further if VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE
> > > > > > >   is not accepted.
> > > > > > >   A device SHOULD offer VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV if it is a PCI device  
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I kind of dislike the REAL_DEVICE name.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > At least part of the actual question, IMHO, is where is the device
> > > > > > located wrt memory that the driver shares with it.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > This might include, but isn't necessarily limited to, device addressing
> > > > > > restrictions and cache synchronization.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > As this patch correctly says, when virtio is used for host to hypervisor
> > > > > > communication, then I think it's easier to describe what is going on:
> > > > > > the device is actually implemented by another CPU just like the one
> > > > > > driver runs on that just happens not to be visible to the driver (I
> > > > > > don't think we need to try and define what host CPU is).
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > But what can we say when this isn't the case?  Maybe that a transport
> > > > > > and platform specific way should be used to discover the device location
> > > > > > and figure out a way to make memory contents visible to the device.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > So - PLATFORM_LOCATION ? PLATFORM_DMA?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Also, how does all this interact with PLATFORM_IOMMU? Should we extend
> > > > > > PLATFORM_IOMMU to cover all addressing restrictions, and
> > > > > > PLATFORM_LOCATION (or whatever) to cover cache effects?
> > > > > > Then we might name it PLATFORM_CACHE. And where would encrypted
> > > > > > memory schemes such as SEV fit? Are they closer to PLATFORM_IOMMU?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Maybe we want to split it like this
> > > > > > - PLATFORM_IOMMU - extend to cover all platform addressing limitations
> > > > > > 	(which memory is accessible)
> > > > > > - IO_BARRIERS - extend to cover all platform cache synchronization effects
> > > > > > 	(which memory contents is visible)
> > > > > > ?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > All this is based on the assumption that the optimizations do not ATM
> > > > > > apply to notifications. It seems that guests already do barriers around
> > > > > > these, anyway - even for hypervisor based devices.
> > > > > > It might be OK to ignore this in spec for now, but
> > > > > > I'd like to have this discussed at least in the commit log.
> > > > > >   
> > > > > 
> > > > > I agree with Michael, VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE does not seem to be a good
> > > > > name. And I agree with Michael, there is a lot's of stuff that should
> > > > > be clarified (in an ideal world).  
> > > > 
> > > > Yeah, it's not a good patch (even for a RFC).. :(
> > > > I didn't have a good idea at that time, and I wasn't sure
> > > > when I could find a good one. So I sent this rough patch out
> > > > as a RFC to kick off the discussion after few days delay..
> > > > Your and Michael's comments are quite helpful! Thanks!
> > > >   
> > > > > 
> > > > > My understanding of what we currently do if PLATFORM_IOMMU is set,
> > > > > is use DMA API and allocate memory for the virtqueues with
> > > > > dma_alloc_coherent(). AFAIU the latter has implications on what can
> > > > > be assumed about caching. (Quote from Documentation/DMA-API.txt
> > > > > "Consistent memory is memory for which a write by either the device or
> > > > > the processor can immediately be read by the processor or device
> > > > > without having to worry about caching effects.  (You may however need
> > > > > to make sure to flush the processor's write buffers before telling
> > > > > devices to read that memory.)")  
> > > >   
> > > > >From my understanding, the problems about the platform's DMA  
> > > > limitations (including bounce buffer, cache coherence, ...)
> > > > don't exist if the driver uses DMA API (vring_use_dma_api()
> > > > return true).  
> > > 
> > > Bounce buffer isn't a DMA limitation as such. It's a solution.
> > > 
> > > The limitation is typically in device addressing.  Does this therefore
> > > belong in the PLATFORM_IOMMU or in a new bit?
> > > 
> > > > I'm trying to understand why driver needs vring_use_dma_api()
> > > > and why vring_use_dma_api() needs to return false in some
> > > > cases. By reading below commit in Linux:
> > > > 
> > > > 1a937693993f ("virtio: new feature to detect IOMMU device quirk")
> > > > 
> > > > It seems that vring_use_dma_api() will return false only when
> > > > the device has an iommu quirk which tells that the device needs
> > > > to bypass the IOMMU.
> > > > So:
> > > > 
> > > > If the device doesn't have the quirk (i.e. the device doesn't
> > > > need to bypass the IOMMU), the driver will always use DMA API
> > > > (vring_use_dma_api() return true), and the problems about the
> > > > platform's DMA limitations don't exist.
> > > > 
> > > > If the system doesn't have an IOMMU, theoretically driver
> > > > can always use DMA API directly. And the problems about the
> > > > platform's DMA limitations won't exist.
> > > > 
> > > > If the system has an IOMMU and the device has the quirk,
> > > > (this is the only case that) the driver can't use DMA API
> > > > directly. And in this case, the driver shouldn't use the
> > > > IOMMU but still need to use DMA API.
> > > > 
> > > > That is to say, only the hardware virtio devices which have
> > > > the IOMMU quirk may not work on the platforms which have DMA
> > > > limitations. If we want to solve this problem, we need to
> > > > tweak this quirk (e.g. ask driver not to use IOMMU instead
> > > > of not to use DMA API).
> > > > 
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Tiwei Bie  
> > > 
> > > So the specific reason we came up with PLATFORM_IOMMU is so that people
> > > can do fine-grained security within guest, e.g. with userspace drivers.
> > > 
> > > ATM for linux drivers it has the effect of also enabling some
> > > other DMA effects. Not all of them and not for userspace drivers.
> > > 
> > > But generally this seems to be the wrong forum to discuss linux
> > > driver quirks.
> > 
> > So, do we still consider VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER useful with its current
> > definition? Do we need to clarify assumptions, start afresh, or add a
> > new feature? This is not clear to me from the discussion.
> 
> The discussion is to talk about how to fix the potential
> problems that currently may happen when the virtio devices
> (which need to bypass the IOMMU) work on the platforms
> (which have DMA limitations).
> 
> Currently,
> 
> - IO_BARRIER is just to tell drivers which type of barriers
>   should be used.
> 
> - IOMMU_PLATFORM (from my understanding) is to tell drivers
>   whether the devices need to bypass the IOMMU.
> 
> Michael is asking whether we should tweak above two bits
> or whether we should do something else to solve this problem.
> 
> If we want to tweak above two bits, they may become
> something like:
> 
> - PLATFORM_CACHE (from IO_BARRIER): about the memory
>    operations visibility between driver and device.
> 
> - PLATFORM_IOMMU (from IOMMU_PLATFORM):

I'm not sure we necessarily need to swap the name
around like that.

> about whether
>    the DMA addr passed to the device should be prepared
>    (because e.g. the device is behind an IOMMU, or the
>    device can only access parts of system memory).

Maybe we want to also include the case where device IO
addresses don't match physical addresses (e.g. include
an offset).


> Currently, I don't know what's the best choice..
> 
> Best regards,
> Tiwei Bie

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [RFC] content: tweak VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER

[Tiwei Bie]

On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 07:20:23AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 04:52:35PM +0800, Tiwei Bie wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 06:08:03PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > > On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 21:39:22 +0300
> > > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 02:19:22AM +0800, Tiwei Bie wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 03:47:28PM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote:  
> > > > > > On 06/25/2018 09:19 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:  
> > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 08:24:42PM +0800, Tiwei Bie wrote:  
> > > > > > > > VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER was proposed recently to allow
> > > > > > > > drivers to do some optimizations when devices are
> > > > > > > > implemented in software. But it only covers barrier
> > > > > > > > related optimizations. Later investigations show
> > > > > > > > that, it could cover more. So this patch tweaks this
> > > > > > > > feature bit to tell the driver whether it can assume
> > > > > > > > the device is implemented in software and runs on
> > > > > > > > host CPU, and also renames this feature bit to
> > > > > > > > VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE correspondingly.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Suggested-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Tiwei Bie <tiwei.bie@intel.com>
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > >   content.tex | 22 ++++++++++------------
> > > > > > > >   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > diff --git a/content.tex b/content.tex
> > > > > > > > index be18234..5d6b977 100644
> > > > > > > > --- a/content.tex
> > > > > > > > +++ b/content.tex
> > > > > > > > @@ -5356,15 +5356,13 @@ Descriptors} and \ref{sec:Packed Virtqueues / Indirect Flag: Scatter-Gather Supp
> > > > > > > >     \item[VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER(35)] This feature indicates
> > > > > > > >     that all buffers are used by the device in the same
> > > > > > > >     order in which they have been made available.
> > > > > > > > -  \item[VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER(36)] This feature indicates
> > > > > > > > -  that the device needs the driver to use the barriers
> > > > > > > > -  suitable for hardware devices.  Some transports require
> > > > > > > > -  barriers to ensure devices have a consistent view of
> > > > > > > > -  memory.  When devices are implemented in software a
> > > > > > > > -  weaker form of barrier may be sufficient and yield
> > > > > > > > +  \item[VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE(36)] This feature indicates
> > > > > > > > +  that the device doesn't allow the driver to assume the
> > > > > > > > +  device is implemented in software and runs on host CPU.
> > > > > > > > +  When devices are implemented in software and run on host
> > > > > > > > +  CPU, some optimizations can be done in drivers and yield
> > > > > > > >     better performance.  This feature indicates whether
> > > > > > > > -  a stronger form of barrier suitable for hardware
> > > > > > > > -  devices is necessary.
> > > > > > > > +  drivers can make this assumption.
> > > > > > > >     \item[VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV(37)] This feature indicates that
> > > > > > > >     the device supports Single Root I/O Virtualization.
> > > > > > > >     Currently only PCI devices support this feature.
> > > > > > > > @@ -5383,9 +5381,9 @@ addresses to the device.
> > > > > > > >   A driver SHOULD accept VIRTIO_F_RING_PACKED if it is offered.
> > > > > > > > -A driver SHOULD accept VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER if it is offered.
> > > > > > > > -If VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER has been negotiated, a driver MUST use
> > > > > > > > -the barriers suitable for hardware devices.
> > > > > > > > +A driver SHOULD accept VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE if it is offered.
> > > > > > > > +If VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE has been negotiated, a driver MUST NOT
> > > > > > > > +assume the device is implemented in software and runs on host CPU.
> > > > > > > >   \devicenormative{\section}{Reserved Feature Bits}{Reserved Feature Bits}
> > > > > > > > @@ -5400,7 +5398,7 @@ accepted.
> > > > > > > >   If VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER has been negotiated, a device MUST use
> > > > > > > >   buffers in the same order in which they have been available.
> > > > > > > > -A device MAY fail to operate further if VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER
> > > > > > > > +A device MAY fail to operate further if VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE
> > > > > > > >   is not accepted.
> > > > > > > >   A device SHOULD offer VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV if it is a PCI device  
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I kind of dislike the REAL_DEVICE name.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > At least part of the actual question, IMHO, is where is the device
> > > > > > > located wrt memory that the driver shares with it.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > This might include, but isn't necessarily limited to, device addressing
> > > > > > > restrictions and cache synchronization.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > As this patch correctly says, when virtio is used for host to hypervisor
> > > > > > > communication, then I think it's easier to describe what is going on:
> > > > > > > the device is actually implemented by another CPU just like the one
> > > > > > > driver runs on that just happens not to be visible to the driver (I
> > > > > > > don't think we need to try and define what host CPU is).
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > But what can we say when this isn't the case?  Maybe that a transport
> > > > > > > and platform specific way should be used to discover the device location
> > > > > > > and figure out a way to make memory contents visible to the device.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > So - PLATFORM_LOCATION ? PLATFORM_DMA?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Also, how does all this interact with PLATFORM_IOMMU? Should we extend
> > > > > > > PLATFORM_IOMMU to cover all addressing restrictions, and
> > > > > > > PLATFORM_LOCATION (or whatever) to cover cache effects?
> > > > > > > Then we might name it PLATFORM_CACHE. And where would encrypted
> > > > > > > memory schemes such as SEV fit? Are they closer to PLATFORM_IOMMU?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Maybe we want to split it like this
> > > > > > > - PLATFORM_IOMMU - extend to cover all platform addressing limitations
> > > > > > > 	(which memory is accessible)
> > > > > > > - IO_BARRIERS - extend to cover all platform cache synchronization effects
> > > > > > > 	(which memory contents is visible)
> > > > > > > ?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > All this is based on the assumption that the optimizations do not ATM
> > > > > > > apply to notifications. It seems that guests already do barriers around
> > > > > > > these, anyway - even for hypervisor based devices.
> > > > > > > It might be OK to ignore this in spec for now, but
> > > > > > > I'd like to have this discussed at least in the commit log.
> > > > > > >   
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I agree with Michael, VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE does not seem to be a good
> > > > > > name. And I agree with Michael, there is a lot's of stuff that should
> > > > > > be clarified (in an ideal world).  
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yeah, it's not a good patch (even for a RFC).. :(
> > > > > I didn't have a good idea at that time, and I wasn't sure
> > > > > when I could find a good one. So I sent this rough patch out
> > > > > as a RFC to kick off the discussion after few days delay..
> > > > > Your and Michael's comments are quite helpful! Thanks!
> > > > >   
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > My understanding of what we currently do if PLATFORM_IOMMU is set,
> > > > > > is use DMA API and allocate memory for the virtqueues with
> > > > > > dma_alloc_coherent(). AFAIU the latter has implications on what can
> > > > > > be assumed about caching. (Quote from Documentation/DMA-API.txt
> > > > > > "Consistent memory is memory for which a write by either the device or
> > > > > > the processor can immediately be read by the processor or device
> > > > > > without having to worry about caching effects.  (You may however need
> > > > > > to make sure to flush the processor's write buffers before telling
> > > > > > devices to read that memory.)")  
> > > > >   
> > > > > >From my understanding, the problems about the platform's DMA  
> > > > > limitations (including bounce buffer, cache coherence, ...)
> > > > > don't exist if the driver uses DMA API (vring_use_dma_api()
> > > > > return true).  
> > > > 
> > > > Bounce buffer isn't a DMA limitation as such. It's a solution.
> > > > 
> > > > The limitation is typically in device addressing.  Does this therefore
> > > > belong in the PLATFORM_IOMMU or in a new bit?
> > > > 
> > > > > I'm trying to understand why driver needs vring_use_dma_api()
> > > > > and why vring_use_dma_api() needs to return false in some
> > > > > cases. By reading below commit in Linux:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 1a937693993f ("virtio: new feature to detect IOMMU device quirk")
> > > > > 
> > > > > It seems that vring_use_dma_api() will return false only when
> > > > > the device has an iommu quirk which tells that the device needs
> > > > > to bypass the IOMMU.
> > > > > So:
> > > > > 
> > > > > If the device doesn't have the quirk (i.e. the device doesn't
> > > > > need to bypass the IOMMU), the driver will always use DMA API
> > > > > (vring_use_dma_api() return true), and the problems about the
> > > > > platform's DMA limitations don't exist.
> > > > > 
> > > > > If the system doesn't have an IOMMU, theoretically driver
> > > > > can always use DMA API directly. And the problems about the
> > > > > platform's DMA limitations won't exist.
> > > > > 
> > > > > If the system has an IOMMU and the device has the quirk,
> > > > > (this is the only case that) the driver can't use DMA API
> > > > > directly. And in this case, the driver shouldn't use the
> > > > > IOMMU but still need to use DMA API.
> > > > > 
> > > > > That is to say, only the hardware virtio devices which have
> > > > > the IOMMU quirk may not work on the platforms which have DMA
> > > > > limitations. If we want to solve this problem, we need to
> > > > > tweak this quirk (e.g. ask driver not to use IOMMU instead
> > > > > of not to use DMA API).
> > > > > 
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Tiwei Bie  
> > > > 
> > > > So the specific reason we came up with PLATFORM_IOMMU is so that people
> > > > can do fine-grained security within guest, e.g. with userspace drivers.
> > > > 
> > > > ATM for linux drivers it has the effect of also enabling some
> > > > other DMA effects. Not all of them and not for userspace drivers.
> > > > 
> > > > But generally this seems to be the wrong forum to discuss linux
> > > > driver quirks.
> > > 
> > > So, do we still consider VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER useful with its current
> > > definition? Do we need to clarify assumptions, start afresh, or add a
> > > new feature? This is not clear to me from the discussion.
> > 
> > The discussion is to talk about how to fix the potential
> > problems that currently may happen when the virtio devices
> > (which need to bypass the IOMMU) work on the platforms
> > (which have DMA limitations).
> > 
> > Currently,
> > 
> > - IO_BARRIER is just to tell drivers which type of barriers
> >   should be used.
> > 
> > - IOMMU_PLATFORM (from my understanding) is to tell drivers
> >   whether the devices need to bypass the IOMMU.
> > 
> > Michael is asking whether we should tweak above two bits
> > or whether we should do something else to solve this problem.
> > 
> > If we want to tweak above two bits, they may become
> > something like:
> > 
> > - PLATFORM_CACHE (from IO_BARRIER): about the memory
> >    operations visibility between driver and device.

Should the driver always try to determine device's
DMA-coherence in the platform specific way?

> > 
> > - PLATFORM_IOMMU (from IOMMU_PLATFORM):
> 
> I'm not sure we necessarily need to swap the name
> around like that.
> 
> > about whether
> >    the DMA addr passed to the device should be prepared
> >    (because e.g. the device is behind an IOMMU, or the
> >    device can only access parts of system memory).

For the case that device can only access parts of system
memory, if we need virtio device to support this, it seems
that we also need to provide a way for virtio driver to
know the inaccessible memory range?

> 
> Maybe we want to also include the case where device IO
> addresses don't match physical addresses (e.g. include
> an offset).
> 
>

It seems that above idea doesn't fix all the problems,
e.g. the case mentioned by Jason, that virtio driver
cannot use swiotlb (which is transparent to the device)
when the IOMMU_PLATFORM bit isn't offered by the device.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [RFC] content: tweak VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 07:04:19PM +0800, Tiwei Bie wrote:
> > > > So, do we still consider VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER useful with its current
> > > > definition? Do we need to clarify assumptions, start afresh, or add a
> > > > new feature? This is not clear to me from the discussion.
> > > 
> > > The discussion is to talk about how to fix the potential
> > > problems that currently may happen when the virtio devices
> > > (which need to bypass the IOMMU) work on the platforms
> > > (which have DMA limitations).
> > > 
> > > Currently,
> > > 
> > > - IO_BARRIER is just to tell drivers which type of barriers
> > >   should be used.
> > > 
> > > - IOMMU_PLATFORM (from my understanding) is to tell drivers
> > >   whether the devices need to bypass the IOMMU.
> > > 
> > > Michael is asking whether we should tweak above two bits
> > > or whether we should do something else to solve this problem.
> > > 
> > > If we want to tweak above two bits, they may become
> > > something like:
> > > 
> > > - PLATFORM_CACHE (from IO_BARRIER): about the memory
> > >    operations visibility between driver and device.
> 
> Should the driver always try to determine device's
> DMA-coherence in the platform specific way?

Point is, some systems don't have any PV interfaces
besides virtio. These need a virtio way to discover
coherence as long as we don't emulate the more expensive
platform specific one.

> > > 
> > > - PLATFORM_IOMMU (from IOMMU_PLATFORM):
> > 
> > I'm not sure we necessarily need to swap the name
> > around like that.
> > 
> > > about whether
> > >    the DMA addr passed to the device should be prepared
> > >    (because e.g. the device is behind an IOMMU, or the
> > >    device can only access parts of system memory).
> 
> For the case that device can only access parts of system
> memory, if we need virtio device to support this, it seems
> that we also need to provide a way for virtio driver to
> know the inaccessible memory range?

I guess at this point people seem to be happy with
a platform-specific way to discover this.

> > 
> > Maybe we want to also include the case where device IO
> > addresses don't match physical addresses (e.g. include
> > an offset).
> > 
> >
> 
> It seems that above idea doesn't fix all the problems,
> e.g. the case mentioned by Jason, that virtio driver
> cannot use swiotlb (which is transparent to the device)
> when the IOMMU_PLATFORM bit isn't offered by the device.

Right so is this a real use-case?
Are there platforms where
- it is hard to make virtio appear not behind an iommu
- iommu can not support a passthrough mode
- virtio addressing needs to be limited






-- 
MST

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [RFC] content: tweak VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 06:08:03PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 21:39:22 +0300
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 02:19:22AM +0800, Tiwei Bie wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 03:47:28PM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote:  
> > > > On 06/25/2018 09:19 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:  
> > > > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 08:24:42PM +0800, Tiwei Bie wrote:  
> > > > > > VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER was proposed recently to allow
> > > > > > drivers to do some optimizations when devices are
> > > > > > implemented in software. But it only covers barrier
> > > > > > related optimizations. Later investigations show
> > > > > > that, it could cover more. So this patch tweaks this
> > > > > > feature bit to tell the driver whether it can assume
> > > > > > the device is implemented in software and runs on
> > > > > > host CPU, and also renames this feature bit to
> > > > > > VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE correspondingly.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Suggested-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Tiwei Bie <tiwei.bie@intel.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >   content.tex | 22 ++++++++++------------
> > > > > >   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > diff --git a/content.tex b/content.tex
> > > > > > index be18234..5d6b977 100644
> > > > > > --- a/content.tex
> > > > > > +++ b/content.tex
> > > > > > @@ -5356,15 +5356,13 @@ Descriptors} and \ref{sec:Packed Virtqueues / Indirect Flag: Scatter-Gather Supp
> > > > > >     \item[VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER(35)] This feature indicates
> > > > > >     that all buffers are used by the device in the same
> > > > > >     order in which they have been made available.
> > > > > > -  \item[VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER(36)] This feature indicates
> > > > > > -  that the device needs the driver to use the barriers
> > > > > > -  suitable for hardware devices.  Some transports require
> > > > > > -  barriers to ensure devices have a consistent view of
> > > > > > -  memory.  When devices are implemented in software a
> > > > > > -  weaker form of barrier may be sufficient and yield
> > > > > > +  \item[VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE(36)] This feature indicates
> > > > > > +  that the device doesn't allow the driver to assume the
> > > > > > +  device is implemented in software and runs on host CPU.
> > > > > > +  When devices are implemented in software and run on host
> > > > > > +  CPU, some optimizations can be done in drivers and yield
> > > > > >     better performance.  This feature indicates whether
> > > > > > -  a stronger form of barrier suitable for hardware
> > > > > > -  devices is necessary.
> > > > > > +  drivers can make this assumption.
> > > > > >     \item[VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV(37)] This feature indicates that
> > > > > >     the device supports Single Root I/O Virtualization.
> > > > > >     Currently only PCI devices support this feature.
> > > > > > @@ -5383,9 +5381,9 @@ addresses to the device.
> > > > > >   A driver SHOULD accept VIRTIO_F_RING_PACKED if it is offered.
> > > > > > -A driver SHOULD accept VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER if it is offered.
> > > > > > -If VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER has been negotiated, a driver MUST use
> > > > > > -the barriers suitable for hardware devices.
> > > > > > +A driver SHOULD accept VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE if it is offered.
> > > > > > +If VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE has been negotiated, a driver MUST NOT
> > > > > > +assume the device is implemented in software and runs on host CPU.
> > > > > >   \devicenormative{\section}{Reserved Feature Bits}{Reserved Feature Bits}
> > > > > > @@ -5400,7 +5398,7 @@ accepted.
> > > > > >   If VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER has been negotiated, a device MUST use
> > > > > >   buffers in the same order in which they have been available.
> > > > > > -A device MAY fail to operate further if VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER
> > > > > > +A device MAY fail to operate further if VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE
> > > > > >   is not accepted.
> > > > > >   A device SHOULD offer VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV if it is a PCI device  
> > > > > 
> > > > > I kind of dislike the REAL_DEVICE name.
> > > > > 
> > > > > At least part of the actual question, IMHO, is where is the device
> > > > > located wrt memory that the driver shares with it.
> > > > > 
> > > > > This might include, but isn't necessarily limited to, device addressing
> > > > > restrictions and cache synchronization.
> > > > > 
> > > > > As this patch correctly says, when virtio is used for host to hypervisor
> > > > > communication, then I think it's easier to describe what is going on:
> > > > > the device is actually implemented by another CPU just like the one
> > > > > driver runs on that just happens not to be visible to the driver (I
> > > > > don't think we need to try and define what host CPU is).
> > > > > 
> > > > > But what can we say when this isn't the case?  Maybe that a transport
> > > > > and platform specific way should be used to discover the device location
> > > > > and figure out a way to make memory contents visible to the device.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > So - PLATFORM_LOCATION ? PLATFORM_DMA?
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Also, how does all this interact with PLATFORM_IOMMU? Should we extend
> > > > > PLATFORM_IOMMU to cover all addressing restrictions, and
> > > > > PLATFORM_LOCATION (or whatever) to cover cache effects?
> > > > > Then we might name it PLATFORM_CACHE. And where would encrypted
> > > > > memory schemes such as SEV fit? Are they closer to PLATFORM_IOMMU?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Maybe we want to split it like this
> > > > > - PLATFORM_IOMMU - extend to cover all platform addressing limitations
> > > > > 	(which memory is accessible)
> > > > > - IO_BARRIERS - extend to cover all platform cache synchronization effects
> > > > > 	(which memory contents is visible)
> > > > > ?
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > All this is based on the assumption that the optimizations do not ATM
> > > > > apply to notifications. It seems that guests already do barriers around
> > > > > these, anyway - even for hypervisor based devices.
> > > > > It might be OK to ignore this in spec for now, but
> > > > > I'd like to have this discussed at least in the commit log.
> > > > >   
> > > > 
> > > > I agree with Michael, VIRTIO_F_REAL_DEVICE does not seem to be a good
> > > > name. And I agree with Michael, there is a lot's of stuff that should
> > > > be clarified (in an ideal world).  
> > > 
> > > Yeah, it's not a good patch (even for a RFC).. :(
> > > I didn't have a good idea at that time, and I wasn't sure
> > > when I could find a good one. So I sent this rough patch out
> > > as a RFC to kick off the discussion after few days delay..
> > > Your and Michael's comments are quite helpful! Thanks!
> > >   
> > > > 
> > > > My understanding of what we currently do if PLATFORM_IOMMU is set,
> > > > is use DMA API and allocate memory for the virtqueues with
> > > > dma_alloc_coherent(). AFAIU the latter has implications on what can
> > > > be assumed about caching. (Quote from Documentation/DMA-API.txt
> > > > "Consistent memory is memory for which a write by either the device or
> > > > the processor can immediately be read by the processor or device
> > > > without having to worry about caching effects.  (You may however need
> > > > to make sure to flush the processor's write buffers before telling
> > > > devices to read that memory.)")  
> > >   
> > > >From my understanding, the problems about the platform's DMA  
> > > limitations (including bounce buffer, cache coherence, ...)
> > > don't exist if the driver uses DMA API (vring_use_dma_api()
> > > return true).  
> > 
> > Bounce buffer isn't a DMA limitation as such. It's a solution.
> > 
> > The limitation is typically in device addressing.  Does this therefore
> > belong in the PLATFORM_IOMMU or in a new bit?
> > 
> > > I'm trying to understand why driver needs vring_use_dma_api()
> > > and why vring_use_dma_api() needs to return false in some
> > > cases. By reading below commit in Linux:
> > > 
> > > 1a937693993f ("virtio: new feature to detect IOMMU device quirk")
> > > 
> > > It seems that vring_use_dma_api() will return false only when
> > > the device has an iommu quirk which tells that the device needs
> > > to bypass the IOMMU.
> > > So:
> > > 
> > > If the device doesn't have the quirk (i.e. the device doesn't
> > > need to bypass the IOMMU), the driver will always use DMA API
> > > (vring_use_dma_api() return true), and the problems about the
> > > platform's DMA limitations don't exist.
> > > 
> > > If the system doesn't have an IOMMU, theoretically driver
> > > can always use DMA API directly. And the problems about the
> > > platform's DMA limitations won't exist.
> > > 
> > > If the system has an IOMMU and the device has the quirk,
> > > (this is the only case that) the driver can't use DMA API
> > > directly. And in this case, the driver shouldn't use the
> > > IOMMU but still need to use DMA API.
> > > 
> > > That is to say, only the hardware virtio devices which have
> > > the IOMMU quirk may not work on the platforms which have DMA
> > > limitations. If we want to solve this problem, we need to
> > > tweak this quirk (e.g. ask driver not to use IOMMU instead
> > > of not to use DMA API).
> > > 
> > > Best regards,
> > > Tiwei Bie  
> > 
> > So the specific reason we came up with PLATFORM_IOMMU is so that people
> > can do fine-grained security within guest, e.g. with userspace drivers.
> > 
> > ATM for linux drivers it has the effect of also enabling some
> > other DMA effects. Not all of them and not for userspace drivers.
> > 
> > But generally this seems to be the wrong forum to discuss linux
> > driver quirks.
> 
> So, do we still consider VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER useful with its current
> definition? Do we need to clarify assumptions, start afresh, or add a
> new feature? This is not clear to me from the discussion.

I am inclined to extend the list of assumptions drivers make
in absence of VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER.

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org