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 BED4DC4451C for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2026 13:24:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists1p.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1wkiY2-0007b2-8s; Fri, 17 Jul 2026 09:24:14 -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 1wkiY0-0007YW-Lt for qemu-arm@nongnu.org; Fri, 17 Jul 2026 09:24:12 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.129.124]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1wkiXx-0006tj-A1 for qemu-arm@nongnu.org; Fri, 17 Jul 2026 09:24:12 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1784294647; 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: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=hc9as2/lTjPqUGG9SEfcXJm6p60BTPo8QHtJAXJ0fcI=; b=NjU845fo18wUpVzvPDwA1KEk6/w9aoLOAEDCZnRvirFubvYkcYOB9l0X7P0nWYyx9d2fDJ JD1ANTr5Q1gg7vnOrFxWYqEn3tQcMqRRb3Kfeldiduo/BIbLs0cMaiboq5/SAAX/zewcbM a5gScR9Uj+OTKSnf95gzrypIXOikQnY= Received: from mail-wr1-f71.google.com (mail-wr1-f71.google.com [209.85.221.71]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-205-b6a4OVmaPtG6_DBVufAP0w-1; Fri, 17 Jul 2026 09:24:06 -0400 X-MC-Unique: b6a4OVmaPtG6_DBVufAP0w-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: b6a4OVmaPtG6_DBVufAP0w_1784294645 Received: by mail-wr1-f71.google.com with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-476608a9fefso1659092f8f.1 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2026 06:24:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1784294645; x=1784899445; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :content-type: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:content-type; bh=hc9as2/lTjPqUGG9SEfcXJm6p60BTPo8QHtJAXJ0fcI=; b=OwrlLg81CpM/B/l6T5FL0G2HCeFciILpJ6pouMjaS48ugayRY2L8+j189znWlG74Ao l2tblUkxY0mosTItRhnmElUJGfZJudQi9g92VUjEzHW1XO7PrlDRL+LJNoJ9WX7s4Ndn uFz1ePvDWKJWDB1XaDYZblDdCoyUpQDYBXD2cGpthBK9/ORFdY5tK46szvWNzYctxax4 fOiS4wkhCc08ScECYh+H5KtvGccg5IeSmQ7VApXNNWVwn4Z2nzTKZdnuvKPl8jaK98O/ YW0wvFo2nZzhpWS3RhLZRMb+6uUfTuXJisG1XAb1nmwFhILpv6s0d/GR4LLUyN4bGHgj n8oA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AHgh+RruWa1dp8Pbpq0NStemAR3FenHZrB2ef5sFW4YfzAtK3mtdWZnmvBG5cxyvtS8lCmOpYOXIJdQGTA==@nongnu.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yxr81Par+bktXERT2AlvlnUpVNzcdn4tx2tdd3i5bUsfjZspx7a FO6f6DIXj/ie1BLf1lj73CYU4jQ/KMtASHL5I01WLMWdEHWna4+b/3u184dx+xyu2RqbaGkhF8H C7gWWBd4AxKJxNwJXlZp2aek7RM9ZvAkcGUlpzklncrHa9kqE5XJWRg== X-Gm-Gg: AfdE7cnez2ExLVJkcjw6r2sd42cdY+j18uWg70if8BFQ33Kv3lmeaCgWJ/lxZ4m3p7B u0PivBag7KyDLIOc/xIFz6+Fa34AVZQnt9+g+OcsYxDOzpSmkDMGDLWlqeulMzBCQy2XlVhWUlX 6Fobjax8IS7ThE3/vbcofGwmSth7rTMBoQpC0NrwMjhJ2fVRJlVOSLcEIlAaqiRYM2IB3WgYNna eqW9rKsJmDIr0H3xMDXaMTTFd/2GFVuyKaLbExZVAmxiUQyTNDYvqrRKEt+6/Q9y8YcW6tzxcH7 XDMoa7ABB9kdM14SP0lB7wtV6lq7Ou0kup7WbIJ/lg4fXCoDwYK1zKMsTIGrRWk4nWvh5UstDr8 rvqNuAkUqAVSBEGFEvz7swddG X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:25f7:b0:473:6590:c42a with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-47f623b546emr3470882f8f.9.1784294644382; Fri, 17 Jul 2026 06:24:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:25f7:b0:473:6590:c42a with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-47f623b546emr3470802f8f.9.1784294643680; Fri, 17 Jul 2026 06:24:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from redhat.com (IGLD-80-230-24-117.inter.net.il. [80.230.24.117]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ffacd0b85a97d-47f63ed244asm3236702f8f.20.2026.07.17.06.24.01 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 17 Jul 2026 06:24:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2026 09:23:59 -0400 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" To: Gavin Shan Cc: Peter Maydell , qemu-arm@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, peterx@redhat.com, alex@shazbot.org, richard.henderson@linaro.org, berrange@redhat.com, philmd@oss.qualcomm.com, philmd@mailo.com, david@kernel.org, clg@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, phrdina@redhat.com, jugraham@redhat.com, liugang24219@sangfor.com.cn, dinghui@sangfor.com.cn, shan.gavin@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] system/memory: Use qemu_ram_{copy, move}() in ram device region accessors Message-ID: <20260717091756-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <20260625070551-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20260625091334-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20260625101817-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20260625123119-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <5faf04b9-d596-4a1d-9fe3-5e9ad5f0a99a@redhat.com> <73f79841-8cc7-4ca6-8f6b-fb97b53a6fe8@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <73f79841-8cc7-4ca6-8f6b-fb97b53a6fe8@redhat.com> X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-MFC-PROC-ID: _jG16mHvRA7Cv209vGo7sdFm9HK8d_YdzhN5XYqc5eI_1784294645 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Received-SPF: permerror client-ip=170.10.129.124; envelope-from=mst@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, 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_H2=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01 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 Thu, Jul 09, 2026 at 07:52:12PM +1000, Gavin Shan wrote: > Hi Michael and Peter, > > On 6/26/26 10:07 AM, Gavin Shan wrote: > > On 6/26/26 4:40 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: > > > On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 at 17:47, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 04:23:47PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 at 15:52, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > > I think there is exactly 1 kinda reasonable case. A 2 byte read/write at > > > > > > offset 0x1 within a dword. This maps nicely to even classical PCI byte > > > > > > enable mechanism and so yes it works if your CPU can initiate these > > > > > > things, and it's atomic. > > > > > > > > > > > > I tried reading LEDCTL on e1000e: > > > > > > > > > > > >         byte  @ 0xe00: 0x64 > > > > > >         byte  @ 0xe01: 0x2a > > > > > >         byte  @ 0xe02: 0x00 > > > > > >         byte  @ 0xe03: 0x00 > > > > > >         word  @ 0xe00: 0x2a64 > > > > > >         word  @ 0xe01: 0x002a > > > > > > > > > > > > Works fine. > > > > > > > > > > The e1000e datasheet actually documents what it does in this > > > > > case (slightly surprising, since hardware engineers love to > > > > > leave this kind of corner case undocumented): > > > > > > > > > > # For registers that should be accessed as 32-bit double words, > > > > > # partial writes (less than a 32-bit double word) does not take > > > > > # effect (such as, the write is ignored). > > > > > # Partial reads > > > > > # return all 32 bits of data regardless of the byte enables. > > > > > # > > > > > # Note: Partial reads to clear-by-read registers (such as, ICR) > > > > > # can have unexpected results since all 32 bits are actually read > > > > > # regardless of the byte enables. Partial reads should not be done. > > > > > > > > > > So for this specific device that access is out-of-spec. > > > > > > > > You mean that access to clear by read should not be done, right? > > > > > > The datasheet is ambiguous about whether "Partial reads should > > > not be done" is meant to apply generally or only to clear-by-read > > > registers. > > > > > > > I think the document intends to say: the partial reads shouldn't be issued to > > the clear-by-read registers. Those partial reads on no-read-side-affect registers > > would be fine. > > > > > > > I guess what I'm wondering is: can we just have code > > > > > that does an aligned exact-width access in the 1/2/4/8 > > > > > byte aligned case, and the host's best approximation to > > > > > an unaligned exact-width access for the 2/4/8 byte > > > > > unaligned case? > > > > > > > > That's my idea, too. > > > > > > > > I assume this the conclusion of our discussions? If so, we just need to have > > unified function where __builtin_{memcpy, memmove}() are used for 1/2/4/8 bytes > > access no matter if the address is aligned, and fall back to {memcpy, memmove}() > > for other cases? > > > > Could you help to confirm if the conclusion is to have unified qemu_ram_{copy, move}() > for all architectures? In qemu_ram_{copy, move}(), the fixed sized accesses like > 1/2/4/8 bytes are handled by __builtin_{memcpy, memmove}() and fall back to > memcpy/memmove() for other sized accesses. It's basically what was proposed by > Michael :-) No. __builtin_ and memcpy/memmove are same on modern linuxes. I'd say as a 1st step, on x86 hosts we can do a fixed size memmove for 1/2/4/8, on other hosts *aligned* 1/2/4/8 bytes can do __atomic_store ... __ATOMIC_RELAXED and the rest can hobble along on memmove and hope for the best. And memcpy is likely not the right thing, ever. > Something like below. > > -----> include/system/memory.h > > +/** > + * qemu_ram_copy: copy data to ramblock > + * > + * @dst: destination where the data is copied to > + * @src: source where the data is copied from > + * @n: length of data to be copied > + * > + * > + * Copy @n bytes from @src to @dst with the assumption that @src and @dst > + * do not overlap. The fixed sized accesses like 1/2/4/8 bytes are handled > + * by __builtin_memcpy() to avoid the optimizations applied to memcpy(), > + * which can be unsafe to DMA/VCPU IO. Fall back to memcpy() for other > + * sized accesses and the safety is ensured by users. > + */ > +void qemu_ram_copy(void *dest, const void *src, size_t n); > + > +/** > + * qemu_ram_move: move data to ramblock > + * > + * @dst: destination where the data is moved to > + * @src: source where the data is moved from > + * @n: length of data to be moved > + * > + * Move @n bytes from @src to @dst with the assumption that @src and @dst > + * can overlap. The fixed sized accesses like 1/2/4/8 bytes are handled > + * by __builtin_memmove() to avoid the optimizations applied to memmove(), > + * which can be unsafe to DMA/VCPU IO. Fall back to memmove() for other > + * sized accesses and the safety is ensured by users. > + */ > +void qemu_ram_move(void *dest, const void *src, size_t n); > + > > -----> system/physmem.c > > +void qemu_ram_copy(void *dst, const void *src, size_t n) > +{ > + switch (n) { > + case 1: > + __builtin_memcpy(dst, src, 1); > + break; > + case 2: > + __builtin_memcpy(dst, src, 2); > + break; > + case 4: > + __builtin_memcpy(dst, src, 4); > + break; > + case 8: > + __builtin_memcpy(dst, src, 8); > + break; > + default: > + memcpy(dst, src, n); > + } > +} > + > +void qemu_ram_move(void *dst, const void *src, size_t n) > +{ > + switch (n) { > + case 1: > + __builtin_memmove(dst, src, 1); > + break; > + case 2: > + __builtin_memmove(dst, src, 2); > + break; > + case 4: > + __builtin_memmove(dst, src, 4); > + break; > + case 8: > + __builtin_memmove(dst, src, 8); > + break; > + default: > + memmove(dst, src, n); > + } > +} > + > > > > > > > (so on sparc you get multiple smaller > > > > > accesses, and on most archs including x86 and arm you > > > > > get an unaligned load). > > > > > > > > I thought unaligned load from uncacheable on arm is > > > > also a fault? > > > > > > For Arm the distinction is not cacheable/uncacheable > > > but Normal vs Device. (Device is essentially for things > > > which are not RAM; Normal is for RAM and RAM-like things, > > > and includes all of Normal Non-cacheable, Normal WT-Cacheable > > > and Normal WB-Cacheable.) Things mapped as Normal memory > > > don't generate unaligned faults (unless the guest turned them > > > on deliberately). For Device memory, it is IMPLEMENTATION > > > DEFINED whether you get an alignment fault or not if you > > > map something as Device that could have handled unaligned > > > accesses if you had mapped it as Normal. > > > > > > > > That would mean the guest could > > > > > potentially provoke a fault on the load/store on an > > > > > access to a passthrough device, but if you give the > > > > > guest passthrough access it can very likely provoke > > > > > a fault anyway, depending on exactly what the device is. > > > > > > > > > > I think the most likely reason for an unaligned access > > > > > in this codepath is "it's actually RAM, either really > > > > > host RAM or else something memory-like in a BAR", and > > > > > either way if the guest does a 4-byte unaligned access > > > > > then doing a 4-byte unaligned access seems better than > > > > > second-guessing it, even on non-x86. > > > > > > > Right though remember: whether it's RAM doesn't matter. What matters is > > > > how we map it.  qemu might fault because it maps NC but guest maps > > > > cacheable and it's ok. > > > > > > If QEMU and the guest disagree about the memory attributes > > > on Arm then we have already lost, because the architecture > > > says that memory attribute mismatches result in a variety of > > > undesirable effects including things like loss of cache coherency > > > (i.e. read and writes via QEMU's NC mapping disagree with ones > > > via the guest's cacheable mapping because the latter are hitting > > > in the cache and the former are bypassing it). > > > > > > > But, all this in theory. At a high level, I personally think going with > > > > what you propose as a 1st approximation is entirely reasonable, except > > > > for one thing: we really should not crash qemu, since access can be from > > > > guest userspace. > > > > > > You can't prevent faults entirely, though -- if the device > > > being mapped has e.g. behaviour that says "unaligned accesses > > > will fault" and then the x86 guest does an unaligned access, > > > then the device will trigger a fault, and the fault is what > > > you want because it's what the guest would see on real h/w. > > > Unfortunately we don't have a convenient way to feed the > > > fault back to the guest. At some level if you pass through > > > host hardware you're relying on the guest to not do totally > > > stupid things. > > > > > > thanks > > > -- PMM > > > > > Thanks, > Gavin