Re: [PATCH V4 05/18] iommu/ioasid: Redefine IOASID set and allocation APIs

Alex Williamson
2021-04-16T15:46:10Z

On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 06:12:58 -0700
Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com> wrote:

> Hi Jason,
>
> On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 20:07:32 -0300, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 03:11:19PM +0200, Auger Eric wrote:
> > > Hi Jason,
> > >
> > > On 4/1/21 6:03 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 02:08:17PM +0000, Liu, Yi L wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> DMA page faults are delivered to root-complex via page request
> > > >> message and it is per-device according to PCIe spec. Page request
> > > >> handling flow is:
> > > >>
> > > >> 1) iommu driver receives a page request from device
> > > >> 2) iommu driver parses the page request message. Get the RID,PASID,
> > > >> faulted page and requested permissions etc.
> > > >> 3) iommu driver triggers fault handler registered by device driver
> > > >> with iommu_report_device_fault()
> > > >
> > > > This seems confused.
> > > >
> > > > The PASID should define how to handle the page fault, not the driver.
> > > >
> > >
> > > In my series I don't use PASID at all. I am just enabling nested stage
> > > and the guest uses a single context. I don't allocate any user PASID at
> > > any point.
> > >
> > > When there is a fault at physical level (a stage 1 fault that concerns
> > > the guest), this latter needs to be reported and injected into the
> > > guest. The vfio pci driver registers a fault handler to the iommu layer
> > > and in that fault handler it fills a circ bugger and triggers an eventfd
> > > that is listened to by the VFIO-PCI QEMU device. this latter retrives
> > > the faault from the mmapped circ buffer, it knowns which vIOMMU it is
> > > attached to, and passes the fault to the vIOMMU.
> > > Then the vIOMMU triggers and IRQ in the guest.
> > >
> > > We are reusing the existing concepts from VFIO, region, IRQ to do that.
> > >
> > > For that use case, would you also use /dev/ioasid?
> >
> > /dev/ioasid could do all the things you described vfio-pci as doing,
> > it can even do them the same way you just described.
> >
> > Stated another way, do you plan to duplicate all of this code someday
> > for vfio-cxl? What about for vfio-platform? ARM SMMU can be hooked to
> > platform devices, right?
> >
> > I feel what you guys are struggling with is some choice in the iommu
> > kernel APIs that cause the events to be delivered to the pci_device
> > owner, not the PASID owner.
> >
> > That feels solvable.
> >
> Perhaps more of a philosophical question for you and Alex. There is no
> doubt that the direction you guided for /dev/ioasid is a much cleaner one,
> especially after VDPA emerged as another IOMMU backed framework.

I think this statement answers all your remaining questions ;)

> The question is what do we do with the nested translation features that have
> been targeting the existing VFIO-IOMMU for the last three years? That
> predates VDPA. Shall we put a stop marker *after* nested support and say no
> more extensions for VFIO-IOMMU, new features must be built on this new
> interface?
>
> If we were to close a checkout line for some unforeseen reasons, should we
> honor the customers already in line for a long time?
>
> This is not a tactic or excuse for not working on the new /dev/ioasid
> interface. In fact, I believe we can benefit from the lessons learned while
> completing the existing. This will give confidence to the new
> interface. Thoughts?

I understand a big part of Jason's argument is that we shouldn't be in
the habit of creating duplicate interfaces, we should create one, well
designed interfaces to share among multiple subsystems. As new users
have emerged, our solution needs to change to a common one rather than
a VFIO specific one. The IOMMU uAPI provides an abstraction, but at
the wrong level, requiring userspace interfaces for each subsystem.

Luckily the IOMMU uAPI is not really exposed as an actual uAPI, but
that changes if we proceed to enable the interfaces to tunnel it
through VFIO.

The logical answer would therefore be that we don't make that
commitment to the IOMMU uAPI if we believe now that it's fundamentally
flawed.

Ideally this new /dev/ioasid interface, and making use of it as a VFIO
IOMMU backend, should replace type1. Type1 will live on until that
interface gets to parity, at which point we may deprecate type1, but it
wouldn't make sense to continue to expand type1 in the same direction
as we intend /dev/ioasid to take over in the meantime, especially if it
means maintaining an otherwise dead uAPI. Thanks,

Alex