From: yongji xie <xyjxie@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Cc: aik@ozlabs.ru, benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org,
mpe@ellerman.id.au, warrier@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
zhong@linux.vnet.ibm.com, nikunj@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] vfio-pci: Allow to mmap sub-page MMIO BARs if all MMIO BARs are page aligned
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 16:23:50 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5673C296.8010403@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1450388804.2674.158.camel@redhat.com>
On 2015/12/18 5:46, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-12-17 at 18:26 +0800, yongji xie wrote:
>> On 2015/12/17 4:04, Alex Williamson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2015-12-11 at 16:53 +0800, Yongji Xie wrote:
>>>> Current vfio-pci implementation disallows to mmap
>>>> sub-page(size < PAGE_SIZE) MMIO BARs because these BARs' mmio
>>>> page
>>>> may be shared with other BARs.
>>>>
>>>> But we should allow to mmap these sub-page MMIO BARs if all MMIO
>>>> BARs
>>>> are page aligned which leads the BARs' mmio page would not be
>>>> shared
>>>> with other BARs.
>>>>
>>>> This patch adds support for this case and we also add a
>>>> VFIO_DEVICE_FLAGS_PCI_PAGE_ALIGNED flag to notify userspace that
>>>> platform supports all MMIO BARs to be page aligned.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Yongji Xie <xyjxie@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c | 10 +++++++++-
>>>> drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_private.h | 5 +++++
>>>> include/uapi/linux/vfio.h | 2 ++
>>>> 3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c
>>>> b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c
>>>> index 32b88bd..dbcad99 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c
>>>> @@ -443,6 +443,9 @@ static long vfio_pci_ioctl(void *device_data,
>>>> if (vdev->reset_works)
>>>> info.flags |= VFIO_DEVICE_FLAGS_RESET;
>>>>
>>>> + if (vfio_pci_bar_page_aligned())
>>>> + info.flags |=
>>>> VFIO_DEVICE_FLAGS_PCI_PAGE_ALIGNED;
>>>> +
>>>> info.num_regions = VFIO_PCI_NUM_REGIONS;
>>>> info.num_irqs = VFIO_PCI_NUM_IRQS;
>>>>
>>>> @@ -479,7 +482,8 @@ static long vfio_pci_ioctl(void *device_data,
>>>> VFIO_REGION_INFO_FLAG_WRIT
>>>> E;
>>>> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_VFIO_PCI_MMAP) &&
>>>> pci_resource_flags(pdev,
>>>> info.index) &
>>>> - IORESOURCE_MEM && info.size >=
>>>> PAGE_SIZE)
>>>> + IORESOURCE_MEM && (info.size >=
>>>> PAGE_SIZE ||
>>>> + vfio_pci_bar_page_aligned()))
>>>> info.flags |=
>>>> VFIO_REGION_INFO_FLAG_MMAP;
>>>> break;
>>>> case VFIO_PCI_ROM_REGION_INDEX:
>>>> @@ -855,6 +859,10 @@ static int vfio_pci_mmap(void *device_data,
>>>> struct vm_area_struct *vma)
>>>> return -EINVAL;
>>>>
>>>> phys_len = pci_resource_len(pdev, index);
>>>> +
>>>> + if (vfio_pci_bar_page_aligned())
>>>> + phys_len = PAGE_ALIGN(phys_len);
>>>> +
>>>> req_len = vma->vm_end - vma->vm_start;
>>>> pgoff = vma->vm_pgoff &
>>>> ((1U << (VFIO_PCI_OFFSET_SHIFT - PAGE_SHIFT)) -
>>>> 1);
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_private.h
>>>> b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_private.h
>>>> index 0e7394f..319352a 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_private.h
>>>> +++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_private.h
>>>> @@ -69,6 +69,11 @@ struct vfio_pci_device {
>>>> #define is_irq_none(vdev) (!(is_intx(vdev) || is_msi(vdev) ||
>>>> is_msix(vdev)))
>>>> #define irq_is(vdev, type) (vdev->irq_type == type)
>>>>
>>>> +static inline bool vfio_pci_bar_page_aligned(void)
>>>> +{
>>>> + return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PPC64);
>>>> +}
>>> I really dislike this. This is a problem for any architecture that
>>> runs on larger pages, and even an annoyance on 4k hosts. Why are
>>> we
>>> only solving it for PPC64?
>> Yes, I know it's a problem for other architectures. But I'm not sure
>> if
>> other archs prefer
>> to enforce the alignment of all BARs to be at least PAGE_SIZE which
>> would result in
>> some waste of address space.
>>
>> So I just propose a prototype and add PPC64 support here. And other
>> archs could decide
>> to use it or not by themselves.
>>> Can't we do something similar in the core PCI code and detect it?
>> So you mean we can do it like this:
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci.h b/drivers/pci/pci.h
>> index d390fc1..f46c04d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pci/pci.h
>> +++ b/drivers/pci/pci.h
>> @@ -320,6 +320,11 @@ static inline resource_size_t
>> pci_resource_alignment(struct pci_dev *dev,
>> return resource_alignment(res);
>> }
>>
>> +static inline bool pci_bar_page_aligned(void)
>> +{
>> + return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PPC64);
>> +}
>> +
>> void pci_enable_acs(struct pci_dev *dev);
>>
>> struct pci_dev_reset_methods {
>>
>> or add a config option to indicate that PCI MMIO BARs should be page
>> aligned?
> Yes, I'm thinking of a boot commandline option, maybe one that PPC64
> can default to enabled if it chooses to. The problem is not unique to
> PPC64 and the solution should not be unique either. I don't want to
> need to revisit this for ARM, which we know is going to be similarly
> afflicted. Thanks,
>
> Alex
>
OK. I will try to fix it by adding a boot commandline option.
It seems to be better than adding a config option. Thanks
Regards
Yongji Xie
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-12-18 8:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-12-11 8:53 [RFC PATCH 0/3] vfio-pci: Allow to mmap sub-page MMIO BARs and MSI-X table on PPC64 platform Yongji Xie
2015-12-11 8:53 ` [RFC PATCH 1/3] powerpc/pci: Enforce all MMIO BARs to be page aligned Yongji Xie
2015-12-11 8:53 ` [RFC PATCH 2/3] vfio-pci: Allow to mmap sub-page MMIO BARs if all MMIO BARs are " Yongji Xie
2015-12-16 20:04 ` Alex Williamson
2015-12-17 10:26 ` yongji xie
2015-12-17 21:46 ` Alex Williamson
2015-12-18 8:23 ` yongji xie [this message]
2015-12-11 8:53 ` [RFC PATCH 3/3] vfio-pci: Allow to mmap MSI-X table if EEH is supported Yongji Xie
2015-12-16 20:14 ` Alex Williamson
2015-12-17 10:08 ` David Laight
2015-12-17 21:06 ` Alex Williamson
2015-12-18 10:15 ` David Laight
2015-12-17 10:37 ` yongji xie
2015-12-17 21:41 ` Alex Williamson
2015-12-17 22:48 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5673C296.8010403@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=xyjxie@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=aik@ozlabs.ru \
--cc=alex.williamson@redhat.com \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=nikunj@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=warrier@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=zhong@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).