From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists1p.gnu.org (lists1p.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1A5ACD98C7 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2026 21:46:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists1p.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1wXQkh-0002oj-Ln; Wed, 10 Jun 2026 17:46:26 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists1p.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1wXQjU-0002Y3-Tc for qemu-arm@nongnu.org; Wed, 10 Jun 2026 17:45:12 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1wXQjS-0006lJ-OJ for qemu-arm@nongnu.org; Wed, 10 Jun 2026 17:45:08 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1781127905; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=+VwT6K+h1UU5mBosQ2pzNZ+g+ZPuQv0L8tsjGrWpLMY=; b=iDNX/FHamHak6qsaB0os+JfQuYNFhqOpnZqor04y+ytZe/l6zpqr1ThYqiqFQCIHG6bbeW GQIHAySDsSLMTc2WlpIlbHSSm9WE7jc3Ei7Aoa7eeP+S/478uEiTznVboqVJG2I25TeZPA DZODxDH3eN/YRCmkBC5+96jDhcHFgYo= Received: from mail-wm1-f70.google.com (mail-wm1-f70.google.com [209.85.128.70]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-12-5pLC0zXINnuocEmpb9zHTA-1; Wed, 10 Jun 2026 17:45:04 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 5pLC0zXINnuocEmpb9zHTA-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: 5pLC0zXINnuocEmpb9zHTA_1781127903 Received: by mail-wm1-f70.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-490b93debc8so58415555e9.1 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2026 14:45:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1781127903; x=1781732703; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=+VwT6K+h1UU5mBosQ2pzNZ+g+ZPuQv0L8tsjGrWpLMY=; b=haFZl/9FmtbLKGXIFf6WFZYJJpwpyVqvYQEqEDe9xKfWWn3acMber8520Ai+jEtwA5 SFGb8NnJjnYVoFqbthQs3YCEl/9dXxq6hSQjumwMfO1byVs1L0t0XjU3Q5v/LmSBqMhT Hjg2KhPfVz05gszInY0Gvh0JV8whY98swbjpqOdV6OGHJwi3d3y0cP+ooFoiEwOQEAr+ mRc5Dyr2TouSbyD2xzfX/wBE9Oof2mPX5laNmx7TMd+vHGfWJ6WCdRMKwzO/I3nA8Ygo +4egGlZWTikY6JCtKkZpeHcudLQpHa5debQ0VMk5U+bCcE1XKN+GUAPpeiFlnyLxUHtb sxow== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AFNElJ+zVa+JPKEhHcBJgfePk2YBMA15TDw/VphQvybmsBFB6yiPVtEdLVNdAg8nGg72tWqCJeIPruvuyA==@nongnu.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yx7F9p1O4oMNHWAihK7d3w1ZQgyXRmgSOGgDZGo0cyUeombxhFe WjNcjSck2/GEQIW/Sbv2RJIHzx4h8feM/1e2ewPuUwhPut0TgJEGmbO2JwSCtDe2oFpdD1XLqeD MWDErAlGtLly8ZegYuJ8GH/cTjM5k7s/L8be8+OAZaMMtLnd87509ng== X-Gm-Gg: Acq92OEgJkAK0t8sr6HxkS4aQaHcWZPFO4bnYn9HeaSd/Bpvib8Xjq1WyqSuZVVfxbn 14LYYsGT/fe744fHlxLizYq9gZNe/eLYZ8qRMF+0VwsL+ngiWcK+Aod2J1jzAw5F0g2xDG/vAbS LPiveTNBurM+w3a9aX3FIZ7/hgbs5TTz1Ta3MuIL3NAzunIqPuBdh4ChQA1/mlO00R0QKIP89DM 8koxjz7p6P5PI/IPqzBPv1IKqlMpDeRspnYWx7FfWe3sBiWNhEWmGOxinPfXEF7/mIMJMAbeISu gZX8LNFRUAENUg4ndBcXmGYn8a/Fy3eBToTdArE6nLUuL7A7wV/G6CZPaxsiGDN1/5nScdZUOAE Q6KDb1QeyMBnCdzITL+tO7z6L0Ba3jRUrAHJXPVtJthyP64dhZ6gqzQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:1c1f:b0:490:b724:dbd6 with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-490c2598382mr420257415e9.6.1781127903002; Wed, 10 Jun 2026 14:45:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:1c1f:b0:490:b724:dbd6 with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-490c2598382mr420257085e9.6.1781127902471; Wed, 10 Jun 2026 14:45:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from redhat.com (IGLD-80-230-85-71.inter.net.il. [80.230.85.71]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ffacd0b85a97d-4601f2f2710sm58612759f8f.14.2026.06.10.14.45.00 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 10 Jun 2026 14:45:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 17:44:58 -0400 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" To: Peter Xu Cc: Peter Maydell , Gavin Shan , Pavel Hrdina , Daniel =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=2E_Berrang=E9?= , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-arm@nongnu.org, jugraham@redhat.com, shan.gavin@gmail.com, Alex Williamson , David Hildenbrand Subject: Re: [PATCH RFCv1] virtio: Inherit max bounce buffer size from bus parent if possible Message-ID: <20260610174052-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <20260610082637-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <5d8cbd4b-3725-437e-88a3-e0af32164815@redhat.com> <20260610095712-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20260610121846-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20260610170146-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-MFC-PROC-ID: -SwRULIndgHA1jo1pkbb9SRVFHM_g-KfGbJ1Nl8zeQU_1781127903 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.133.124; envelope-from=mst@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -24 X-Spam_score: -2.5 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.5 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.445, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-arm@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-arm-bounces+qemu-arm=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-arm-bounces+qemu-arm=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 05:27:31PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote: > On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 05:03:59PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 03:10:46PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 12:19:39PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 05:11:40PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 at 16:37, Peter Xu wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 10:06:24AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > > > This is the change that broke it I think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commit 4a2e242bbb306ef5c16ce9e7bb2da3bd8a4eb098 > > > > > > > Author: Alex Williamson > > > > > > > Date: Mon Oct 31 09:53:03 2016 -0600 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > memory: Don't use memcpy for ram_device regions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe Alex has an opinion on what to do. > > > > > > > > > > > > I can offer one idea here.. > > > > > > > > > > > > IIUC the major issue was vector ops but the mr ops might be too heavy, then > > > > > > another way to fix it is in memory API instead of using memcpy()/memmove(), > > > > > > we always use a helper (say, memmove_no_vector()) to do the split and > > > > > > properly aligned IOs as what ram_device_mem_ops does right now, this should > > > > > > only applies to ram_device. > > > > > > > > > > If the underlying memory needs to be accessed only with specific > > > > > alignment/size, as the 4a2e242bbb30 commit message suggests, then > > > > > we cannot expose it via address_space_map(), so we must have > > > > > a bounce-buffer. > > > > > > I get the point; this is technically a concern, but IMHO it's still > > > slightly different, and I expect it non-issue in reality. > > > > > > Essentially we can have two ways to iteract with the pci bar: > > > > > > 1) via vCPU / CPU access > > > 2) via DMA targets > > > > > > Alex can correct me, but IIUC that problem was when the CPU accesses the > > > mapped region with memcpy(), rather than making that bar to be DMA target. > > > Hence, use case 1) only. So my current understanding is the proposal > > > shouldn't (hopefully..) regress that realtek problem because use case 1) is > > > properly covered. > > > > > > I always think it is very bogus to have any register-like MMIO regions to > > > be passed over, maybe it's a bug already? It's because I don't know any > > > way to guarantee DMA performs in a way that will be compatible with a pci > > > bar that is register-based and will not have any side effect. Say, if some > > > pci bar (real register-backed) must be accessed in 4B and aligned, how > > > would a DMA request guarantee that? > > > > > > >From that perspective, IMHO it's a guest (driver or app, I'm not sure..) > > > bug to make such region to be DMA target in the first place. The outcome > > > of such setup should be undefined. It'll be the same after applying the > > > proposal I raised, that QEMU will have undefined behavior for such pci bars > > > to be used as DMA targets. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Sorry, wasting gibabytes and GB/s of main > > RAM and PCI BW just to shuffle data back out the PCI bus > > is out of the question. > > > > You don't have to like it) > > I'm not sure if my previous comment wasn't clear, but just to make sure it > is.. > > The proposal was exactly about making ram_device to be directly accessible > by default. That is, make memory_region_supports_direct_access() return > true for ram_device like before, however when doing direct access from > QEMU, QEMU should use memmove_no_vector() version instead of memcpy(). > > We leave DMA maps like virtio-blk to be directly accessible without > auditing device emulations using memcpy() or not: then QEMU faces the same > risk to bare metal where MMIO regions used for DMA buffers, then it's > undefined behavior. > > In case of GPU bar mapping, it should then work like RAM for virtio-blk. > > Thanks, Ah, I get it. not sure we need memmove_no_vector even, we can keep the bounce buffer thing if we want. > > > > > > > > > > Right. And virtio currently isn't friendly to the bounce buffer. > > > > We can fix that but I worry about the perf impact. > > > > > > > > > The address_space_map() function says > > > > > "here's a host pointer to memory, do what you like to it", and > > > > > the caller is entitled to memcpy to/from it or otherwise > > > > > access it with any C operations, which are not guaranteed to > > > > > respect any kind of alignment or similar restrictions. > > > > > > > > > > My guess from commit 4a2e242bbb30 is that that applied an > > > > > overly broad "don't do direct access" hammer to all > > > > > vfio assigned devices, and that there needs to be some > > > > > concept of "this vfio assigned device's region is OK for > > > > > direct access" vs "this other one is not", such that if > > > > > this GH100 card's BAR guarantees it can be treated entirely > > > > > as RAM then we can have memory_region_supports_direct_access() > > > > > return true for it. > > > > > > > > > > thanks > > > > > -- PMM > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Peter Xu > > > > > > -- > Peter Xu