Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] kvm: arm64: set io memory s2 pte as normalnc for vfio pci devices

From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
Cc: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@kernel.org>,
	ankita@nvidia.com, maz@kernel.org, suzuki.poulose@arm.com,
	yuzenghui@huawei.com, will@kernel.org,
	alex.williamson@redhat.com, kevin.tian@intel.com,
	yi.l.liu@intel.com, ardb@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	gshan@redhat.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, aniketa@nvidia.com,
	cjia@nvidia.com, kwankhede@nvidia.com, targupta@nvidia.com,
	vsethi@nvidia.com, acurrid@nvidia.com, apopple@nvidia.com,
	jhubbard@nvidia.com, danw@nvidia.com, mochs@nvidia.com,
	kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, james.morse@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] kvm: arm64: set io memory s2 pte as normalnc for vfio pci devices
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2024 13:33:15 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZZViG0Vu0EDMEuGD@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240102170908.GG50406@nvidia.com>

On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 01:09:08PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 01:19:18PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > If we really want to avoid any aliases (though I think we are spending
> > too many cycles on something that's not a real issue), the only way is
> > to have fd-based mappings in KVM so that there's no VMM alias. After
> > that we need to choose between (2) and (3) since the VMM may no longer
> > be able to probe the device and figure out which ranges need what
> > attributes.
> 
> If we use a FD then KVM will be invoking some API on the FD to get the
> physical memory addreses and we can have that API also return
> information on the allowed memory types.

I think the part with a VFIO WC flag wouldn't be any different. The
fd-based mapping only solves the mismatched alias, otherwise the
decision for Normal NC vs Device still lies with the guest driver.

> > > Kinda stinks to make the VMM aware of the device, but IMO it is a
> > > fundamental limitation of the way we back memslots right now.
> > 
> > As I mentioned above, the limitation may be more complex if the
> > intra-BAR attributes are not something readily available in the device
> > documentation. Maybe Jason or Ankit can shed some light here: are those
> > intra-BAR ranges configurable by the (guest) driver or they are already
> > pre-configured by firmware and the driver only needs to probe them?
> 
> Configured by the guest on the fly, on a page by page basis.
> 
> There is no way for the VMM to pre-predict what memory type the VM
> will need. The VM must be in control of this.

That's a key argument why the VMM cannot do this, unless we come up with
some para-virtualised interface and split the device configuration logic
between the VMM and the VM. I don't think that's feasible, too much
complexity.

-- 
Catalin

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel