RE: (proposal) RE: [PATCH v7 00/16] vfio: expose virtual Shared Virtual Addressing to VMs

Liu, Yi L
2020-10-15T10:15:07Z

> From: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 4:41 PM
>
>
> On 2020/10/15 ??3:58, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> >> From: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
> >> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 2:52 PM
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2020/10/14 ??11:08, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> >>>> From: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 2:22 PM
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 2020/10/12 ??4:38, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> >>>>>> From: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
> >>>>>> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 12:20 PM
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> [...]
> >>>>> > If it's possible, I would suggest a generic uAPI instead of
> >>>>> a VFIO
> >>>>>> specific one.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Jason suggest something like /dev/sva. There will be a lot of
> >>>>>> other subsystems that could benefit from this (e.g vDPA).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Have you ever considered this approach?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Hi, Jason,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We did some study on this approach and below is the output. It's a
> >>>>> long writing but I didn't find a way to further abstract w/o
> >>>>> losing necessary context. Sorry about that.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Overall the real purpose of this series is to enable IOMMU nested
> >>>>> translation capability with vSVA as one major usage, through below
> >>>>> new uAPIs:
> >>>>> 1) Report/enable IOMMU nested translation capability;
> >>>>> 2) Allocate/free PASID;
> >>>>> 3) Bind/unbind guest page table;
> >>>>> 4) Invalidate IOMMU cache;
> >>>>> 5) Handle IOMMU page request/response (not in this series);
> >>>>> 1/3/4) is the minimal set for using IOMMU nested translation, with
> >>>>> the other two optional. For example, the guest may enable vSVA on
> >>>>> a device without using PASID. Or, it may bind its gIOVA page table
> >>>>> which doesn't require page fault support. Finally, all operations
> >>>>> can be applied to either physical device or subdevice.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Then we evaluated each uAPI whether generalizing it is a good
> >>>>> thing both in concept and regarding to complexity.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> First, unlike other uAPIs which are all backed by iommu_ops, PASID
> >>>>> allocation/free is through the IOASID sub-system.
> >>>> A question here, is IOASID expected to be the single management
> >>>> interface for PASID?
> >>> yes
> >>>
> >>>> (I'm asking since there're already vendor specific IDA based PASID
> >>>> allocator e.g amdgpu_pasid_alloc())
> >>> That comes before IOASID core was introduced. I think it should be
> >>> changed to use the new generic interface. Jacob/Jean can better
> >>> comment if other reason exists for this exception.
> >>
> >> If there's no exception it should be fixed.
> >>
> >>
> >>>>> From this angle
> >>>>> we feel generalizing PASID management does make some sense.
> >>>>> First, PASID is just a number and not related to any device before
> >>>>> it's bound to a page table and IOMMU domain. Second, PASID is a
> >>>>> global resource (at least on Intel VT-d),
> >>>> I think we need a definition of "global" here. It looks to me for
> >>>> vt-d the PASID table is per device.
> >>> PASID table is per device, thus VT-d could support per-device PASIDs
> >>> in concept.
> >>
> >> I think that's the requirement of PCIE spec which said PASID + RID
> >> identifies the process address space ID.
> >>
> >>
> >>> However on Intel platform we require PASIDs to be managed in
> >>> system-wide (cross host and guest) when combining vSVA, SIOV, SR-IOV
> >>> and ENQCMD together.
> >>
> >> Any reason for such requirement? (I'm not familiar with ENQCMD, but
> >> my understanding is that vSVA, SIOV or SR-IOV doesn't have the
> >> requirement for system-wide PASID).
> > ENQCMD is a new instruction to allow multiple processes submitting
> > workload to one shared workqueue. Each process has an unique PASID
> > saved in a MSR, which is included in the ENQCMD payload to indicate
> > the address space when the CPU sends to the device. As one process
> > might issue ENQCMD to multiple devices, OS-wide PASID allocation is
> > required both in host and guest side.
> >
> > When executing ENQCMD in the guest to a SIOV device, the guest
> > programmed value in the PASID_MSR must be translated to a host PASID
> > value for proper function/isolation as PASID represents the address
> > space. The translation is done through a new VMCS PASID translation
> > structure (per-VM, and 1:1 mapping). From this angle the host PASIDs
> > must be allocated 'globally' cross all assigned devices otherwise it
> > may lead to 1:N mapping when a guest process issues ENQCMD to multiple
> > assigned devices/subdevices.
> >
> > There will be a KVM forum session for this topic btw.
>
>
> Thanks for the background. Now I see the restrict comes from ENQCMD.
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>> Thus the host creates only one 'global' PASID namespace but do use
> >>> per-device PASID table to assure isolation between devices on Intel
> >>> platforms. But ARM does it differently as Jean explained.
> >>> They have a global namespace for host processes on all host-owned
> >>> devices (same as Intel), but then per-device namespace when a device
> >>> (and its PASID table) is assigned to userspace.
> >>>
> >>>> Another question, is this possible to have two DMAR hardware
> >>>> unit(at least I can see two even in my laptop). In this case, is
> >>>> PASID still a global resource?
> >>> yes
> >>>
> >>>>> while having separate VFIO/
> >>>>> VDPA allocation interfaces may easily cause confusion in
> >>>>> userspace, e.g. which interface to be used if both VFIO/VDPA devices exist.
> >>>>> Moreover, an unified interface allows centralized control over how
> >>>>> many PASIDs are allowed per process.
> >>>> Yes.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> One unclear part with this generalization is about the permission.
> >>>>> Do we open this interface to any process or only to those which
> >>>>> have assigned devices? If the latter, what would be the mechanism
> >>>>> to coordinate between this new interface and specific passthrough
> >>>>> frameworks?
> >>>> I'm not sure, but if you just want a permission, you probably can
> >>>> introduce new capability (CAP_XXX) for this.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> A more tricky case, vSVA support on ARM (Eric/Jean please
> >>>>> correct me) plans to do per-device PASID namespace which is built
> >>>>> on a bind_pasid_table iommu callback to allow guest fully manage
> >>>>> its PASIDs on a given passthrough device.
> >>>> I see, so I think the answer is to prepare for the namespace
> >>>> support from the start. (btw, I don't see how namespace is handled
> >>>> in current IOASID module?)
> >>> The PASID table is based on GPA when nested translation is enabled
> >>> on ARM SMMU. This design implies that the guest manages PASID table
> >>> thus PASIDs instead of going through host-side API on assigned
> >>> device. From this angle we don't need explicit namespace in the host
> >>> API. Just need a way to control how many PASIDs a process is allowed
> >>> to allocate in the global namespace. btw IOASID module already has
> >>> 'set' concept per-process and PASIDs are managed per-set. Then the
> >>> quota control can be easily introduced in the 'set' level.
> >>>
> >>>>> I'm not sure
> >>>>> how such requirement can be unified w/o involving passthrough
> >>>>> frameworks, or whether ARM could also switch to global PASID
> >>>>> style...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Second, IOMMU nested translation is a per IOMMU domain capability.
> >>>>> Since IOMMU domains are managed by VFIO/VDPA
> >>>>> (alloc/free domain, attach/detach device, set/get domain
> >>>>> attribute, etc.), reporting/enabling the nesting capability is an
> >>>>> natural extension to the domain uAPI of existing passthrough frameworks.
> >>>>> Actually, VFIO already includes a nesting enable interface even
> >>>>> before this series. So it doesn't make sense to generalize this
> >>>>> uAPI out.
> >>>> So my understanding is that VFIO already:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) use multiple fds
> >>>> 2) separate IOMMU ops to a dedicated container fd (type1 iommu)
> >>>> 3) provides API to associated devices/group with a container
> >>>>
> >>>> And all the proposal in this series is to reuse the container fd.
> >>>> It should be possible to replace e.g type1 IOMMU with a unified module.
> >>> yes, this is the alternative option that I raised in the last paragraph.
> >>>
> >>>>> Then the tricky part comes with the remaining operations (3/4/5),
> >>>>> which are all backed by iommu_ops thus effective only within an
> >>>>> IOMMU domain. To generalize them, the first thing is to find a way
> >>>>> to associate the sva_FD (opened through generic /dev/sva) with an
> >>>>> IOMMU domain that is created by VFIO/VDPA. The second thing is to
> >>>>> replicate {domain<->device/subdevice} association in /dev/sva path
> >>>>> because some operations (e.g. page fault) is triggered/handled per
> >>>>> device/subdevice.
> >>>> Is there any reason that the #PF can not be handled via SVA fd?
> >>> using per-device FDs or multiplexing all fault info through one
> >>> sva_FD is just an implementation choice. The key is to mark faults
> >>> per device/ subdevice thus anyway requires a userspace-visible
> >>> handle/tag to represent device/subdevice and the domain/device
> >>> association must be constructed in this new path.
> >>
> >> I don't get why it requires a userspace-visible handle/tag. The
> >> binding between SVA fd and device fd could be done either explicitly
> >> or implicitly. So userspace know which (sub)device that this SVA fd is for.
> >>
> >>
> >>>>> Therefore, /dev/sva must provide both per- domain and
> >>>>> per-device uAPIs similar to what VFIO/VDPA already does. Moreover,
> >>>>> mapping page fault to subdevice requires pre- registering
> >>>>> subdevice fault data to IOMMU layer when binding guest page table,
> >>>>> while such fault data can be only retrieved from parent driver
> >>>>> through VFIO/VDPA.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> However, we failed to find a good way even at the 1st step about
> >>>>> domain association. The iommu domains are not exposed to the
> >>>>> userspace, and there is no 1:1 mapping between domain and device.
> >>>>> In VFIO, all devices within the same VFIO container share the
> >>>>> address space but they may be organized in multiple IOMMU domains
> >>>>> based on their bus type. How (should we let) the userspace know
> >>>>> the domain information and open an sva_FD for each domain is the
> >>>>> main problem here.
> >>>> The SVA fd is not necessarily opened by userspace. It could be get
> >>>> through subsystem specific uAPIs.
> >>>>
> >>>> E.g for vDPA if a vDPA device contains several vSVA-capable
> >>>> domains, we
> >> can:
> >>>> 1) introduce uAPI for userspace to know the number of vSVA-capable
> >>>> domain
> >>>> 2) introduce e.g VDPA_GET_SVA_FD to get the fd for each
> >>>> vSVA-capable domain
> >>> and also new interface to notify userspace when a domain disappears
> >>> or a device is detached?
> >>
> >> You need to deal with this case even in VFIO, isn't it?
> > No. VFIO doesn't expose domain knowledge to userspace.
>
>
> Neither did the above API I think.
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>> Finally looks we are creating a completely set of new subsystem
> >>> specific uAPIs just for generalizing another set of subsystem
> >>> specific uAPIs. Remember after separating PASID mgmt.
> >>> out then most of remaining vSVA uAPIs are simpler wrapper of IOMMU
> >>> API. Replicating them is much easier logic than developing a new
> >>> glue mechanism in each subsystem.
> >>
> >> As discussed, the point is more than just simple generalizing. It's
> >> about the limitation of current uAPI. So I have the following questions:
> >>
> >> Do we want a single PASID to be used by more than one devices?
> > Yes.
> >
> >> If yes, do we want those devices to share I/O page tables?
> > Yes.
> >
> >> If yes, which uAPI is used to program the shared I/O page tables?
> >>
> > Page table binding needs to be done per-device, so the userspace will
> > use VFIO uAPI for VFIO device and vDPA uAPI for vDPA device.
>
>
> Any design considerations for this, I think it should be done per PASID instead
> (consider PASID is a global resource)?

per device and per PASID. you may have a look from the below arch. PASID
table is per device, the binding of page table are set to PASID table
entry.

"
In VT-d implementation, PASID table is per device and maintained in the host.
Guest PASID table is shadowed in VMM where virtual IOMMU is emulated.

.-------------. .---------------------------.
| vIOMMU | | Guest process CR3, FL only|
| | '---------------------------'
.----------------/
| PASID Entry |--- PASID cache flush -
'-------------' |
| | V
| | CR3 in GPA
'-------------'
Guest
------| Shadow |--------------------------|--------
v v v
Host
.-------------. .----------------------.
| pIOMMU | | Bind FL for GVA-GPA |
| | '----------------------'
.----------------/ |
| PASID Entry | V (Nested xlate)
'----------------\.------------------------------.
| | |SL for GPA-HPA, default domain|
| | '------------------------------'
'-------------'
Where:
- FL = First level/stage one page tables
- SL = Second level/stage two page tables
"
copied from https://lwn.net/Articles/807506/

>
> > The binding request is initiated by the virtual IOMMU, when capturing
> > guest attempt of binding page table to a virtual PASID entry for a
> > given device.
>
>
> And for L2 page table programming, if PASID is use by both e.g VFIO and
> vDPA, user need to choose one of uAPI to build l2 mappings?

for L2 page table mappings, it's done by VFIO MAP/UNMAP. for vdpa, I guess
it is tlb flush. so you are right. Keeping L1/L2 page table management in
a single uAPI set is also a reason for my current series which extends VFIO
for L1 management.

Regards,
Yi Liu

> Thanks
>
>
> >
> > Thanks
> > Kevin
> >
> >>
> >>>>> In the end we just realized that doing such generalization doesn't
> >>>>> really lead to a clear design and instead requires tight coordination
> >>>>> between /dev/sva and VFIO/VDPA for almost every new uAPI
> >>>>> (especially about synchronization when the domain/device
> >>>>> association is changed or when the device/subdevice is being reset/
> >>>>> drained). Finally it may become a usability burden to the userspace
> >>>>> on proper use of the two interfaces on the assigned device.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Based on above analysis we feel that just generalizing PASID mgmt.
> >>>>> might be a good thing to look at while the remaining operations are
> >>>>> better being VFIO/VDPA specific uAPIs. anyway in concept those are
> >>>>> just a subset of the page table management capabilities that an
> >>>>> IOMMU domain affords. Since all other aspects of the IOMMU domain
> >>>>> is managed by VFIO/VDPA already, continuing this path for new nesting
> >>>>> capability sounds natural. There is another option by generalizing the
> >>>>> entire IOMMU domain management (sort of the entire vfio_iommu_
> >>>>> type1), but it's unclear whether such intrusive change is worthwhile
> >>>>> (especially when VFIO/VDPA already goes different route even in legacy
> >>>>> mapping uAPI: map/unmap vs. IOTLB).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thoughts?
> >>>> I'm ok with starting with a unified PASID management and consider the
> >>>> unified vSVA/vIOMMU uAPI later.
> >>>>
> >>> Glad to see that we have consensus here. :)
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>> Kevin