Re: [RFC 0/2] VFIO: Add virtual MSI doorbell support.

Marc Zyngier
2015-07-28T16:55:10Z

Hi Alex,

On 28/07/15 17:21, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-07-24 at 14:33 +0530, Pranavkumar Sawargaonkar wrote:
>> In current VFIO MSI/MSI-X implementation, linux host kernel
>> allocates MSI/MSI-X vectors when userspace requests through vfio ioctls.
>> Vfio creates irqfd mappings to notify MSI/MSI-X interrupts
>> to the userspace when raised.
>> Guest OS will see emulated MSI/MSI-X controller and receives an interrupt
>> when kernel notifies the same via irqfd.
>>
>> Host kernel allocates MSI/MSI-X using standard linux routines
>> like pci_enable_msix_range() and pci_enable_msi_range().
>> These routines along with requset_irq() in host kernel sets up
>> MSI/MSI-X vectors with Physical MSI/MSI-X addresses provided by
>> interrupt controller driver in host kernel.
>>
>> This means when a device is assigned with the guest OS, MSI/MSI-X addresses
>> present in PCIe EP are the PAs programmed by the host linux kernel.
>>
>> In x86 MSI/MSI-X physical address range is reserved and iommu is aware
>> about these addreses and transalation is bypassed for these address range.
>>
>> Unlike x86, ARM/ARM64 does not reserve MSI/MSI-X Physical address range and
>> all the transactions including MSI go through iommu/smmu without bypass.
>> This requires extending current vfio MSI layer with additional functionality
>> for ARM/ARM64 by
>> 1. Programing IOVA (referred as a MSI virtual doorbell address)
>> in device's MSI vector as a MSI address.
>> This IOVA will be provided by the userspace based on the
>> MSI/MSI-X addresses reserved for the guest.
>> 2. Create an IOMMU mapping between this IOVA and
>> Physical address (PA) assigned to the MSI vector.
>>
>> This RFC is proposing a solution for MSI/MSI-X passthrough for ARM/ARM64.
>
>
> Hi Pranavkumar,
>
> Freescale has the same, or very similar, need, so any solution in this
> space will need to work for both ARM and powerpc. I'm not a big fan of
> this approach as it seems to require the user to configure MSI/X via
> ioctl and then call a separate ioctl mapping the doorbells. That's more
> code for the user, more code to get wrong and potentially a gap between
> configuring MSI/X and enabling mappings where we could see IOMMU faults.
>
> If we know that doorbell mappings are required, why can't we set aside a
> bank of IOVA space and have them mapped automatically as MSI/X is being
> configured? Then the user's need for special knowledge and handling of
> this case is limited to setup. The IOVA space will be mapped and used
> as needed, we only need the user to specify the IOVA space reserved for
> this. Thanks,

I guess my immediate worry is that it seems to impose a fixed mapping
for all the guests, which would restrict the "shape" of the mappings we
give to a guest. Or did you intend for that IOVA mapping to be defined
on a "per userspace instance" basis?

Thanks,

M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...