Re: [PATCH v2 18/30] virtio_fs, dax: Set up virtio_fs dax_device

Cornelia Huck
2019-07-22T11:43:31Z

On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 13:20:18 +0200
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> wrote:

> On 22.07.19 12:56, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > * Christian Borntraeger (borntraeger@de.ibm.com) wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 18.07.19 16:30, Dan Williams wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 6:15 AM Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 07:27:25PM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, 15 May 2019 15:27:03 -0400
> >>>>> Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> From: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Setup a dax device.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Use the shm capability to find the cache entry and map it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The DAX window is accessed by the fs/dax.c infrastructure and must have
> >>>>>> struct pages (at least on x86). Use devm_memremap_pages() to map the
> >>>>>> DAX window PCI BAR and allocate struct page.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sorry for being this late. I don't see any more recent version so I will
> >>>>> comment here.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm trying to figure out how is this supposed to work on s390. My concern
> >>>>> is, that on s390 PCI memory needs to be accessed by special
> >>>>> instructions. This is taken care of by the stuff defined in
> >>>>> arch/s390/include/asm/io.h. E.g. we 'override' __raw_writew so it uses
> >>>>> the appropriate s390 instruction. However if the code does not use the
> >>>>> linux abstractions for accessing PCI memory, but assumes it can be
> >>>>> accessed like RAM, we have a problem.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Looking at this patch, it seems to me, that we might end up with exactly
> >>>>> the case described. For example AFAICT copy_to_iter() (3) resolves to
> >>>>> the function in lib/iov_iter.c which does not seem to cater for s390
> >>>>> oddities.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I didn't have the time to investigate this properly, and since virtio-fs
> >>>>> is virtual, we may be able to get around what is otherwise a
> >>>>> limitation on s390. My understanding of these areas is admittedly
> >>>>> shallow, and since I'm not sure I'll have much more time to
> >>>>> invest in the near future I decided to raise concern.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Any opinions?
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Halil,
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't understand s390 and how PCI works there as well. Is there any
> >>>> other transport we can use there to map IO memory directly and access
> >>>> using DAX?
> >>>>
> >>>> BTW, is DAX supported for s390.
> >>>>
> >>>> I am also hoping somebody who knows better can chip in. Till that time,
> >>>> we could still use virtio-fs on s390 without DAX.
> >>>
> >>> s390 has so-called "limited" dax support, see CONFIG_FS_DAX_LIMITED.
> >>> In practice that means that support for PTE_DEVMAP is missing which
> >>> means no get_user_pages() support for dax mappings. Effectively it's
> >>> only useful for execute-in-place as operations like fork() and ptrace
> >>> of dax mappings will fail.
> >>
> >>
> >> This is only true for the dcssblk device driver (drivers/s390/block/dcssblk.c
> >> and arch/s390/mm/extmem.c).
> >>
> >> For what its worth, the dcssblk looks to Linux like normal memory (just above the
> >> previously detected memory) that can be used like normal memory. In previous time
> >> we even had struct pages for this memory - this was removed long ago (when it was
> >> still xip) to reduce the memory footprint for large dcss blocks and small memory
> >> guests.
> >> Can the CONFIG_FS_DAX_LIMITED go away if we have struct pages for that memory?
> >>
> >> Now some observations:
> >> - dcssblk is z/VM only (not KVM)
> >> - Setting CONFIG_FS_DAX_LIMITED globally as a Kconfig option depending on wether
> >> a device driver is compiled in or not seems not flexible enough in case if you
> >> have device driver that does have struct pages and another one that doesn't
> >> - I do not see a reason why we should not be able to map anything from QEMU
> >> into the guest real memory via an additional KVM memory slot.
> >> We would need to handle that in the guest somehow (and not as a PCI bar),
> >> register this with struct pages etc.

You mean for ccw, right? I don't think we want pci to behave
differently than everywhere else.

> >> - we must then look how we can create the link between the guest memory and the
> >> virtio-fs driver. For virtio-ccw we might be able to add a new ccw command or
> >> whatever. Maybe we could also piggy-back on some memory hotplug work from David
> >> Hildenbrand (add cc).
> >>
> >> Regarding limitations on the platform:
> >> - while we do have PCI, the virtio devices are usually plugged via the ccw bus.
> >> That implies no PCI bars. I assume you use those PCI bars only to implicitely
> >> have the location of the shared memory
> >> Correct?
> >
> > Right.
>
> So in essence we just have to provide a vm_get_shm_region callback in the virtio-ccw
> guest code?
>
> How many regions do we have to support? One region per device? Or many?
> Even if we need more, this should be possible with a 2 new CCWs, e.g READ_SHM_BASE(id)
> and READ_SHM_SIZE(id)

I'd just add a single CCW with a control block containing id and size.

The main issue is where we put those regions, and what happens if we
use both virtio-pci and virtio-ccw on the same machine.

>
>
> >
> >> - no real memory mapped I/O. Instead there are instructions that work on the mmio.
> >> As I understand things, this is of no concern regarding virtio-fs as you do not
> >> need mmio in the sense that a memory access of the guest to such an address
> >> triggers an exit. You just need the shared memory as a mean to have the data
> >> inside the guest. Any notification is done via normal virtqueue mechanisms
> >> Correct?
> >
> > Yep.
>