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

Marc Zyngier
2015-09-22T22:09:19Z

On Tue, 4 Aug 2015 06:52:01 +0100
Bhushan Bharat <Bharat.Bhushan@freescale.com> wrote:

>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Pranavkumar Sawargaonkar [mailto:pranavkumar@linaro.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2015 11:18 AM
> > To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777
> > Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org; Alex Williamson; kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu;
> > linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
> > christoffer.dall@linaro.org; marc.zyngier@arm.com; will.deacon@arm.com;
> > bhelgaas@google.com; arnd@arndb.de; rob.herring@linaro.org;
> > eric.auger@linaro.org; patches@apm.com; Yoder Stuart-B08248
> > Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] VFIO: Add virtual MSI doorbell support.
> >
> > Hi Bharat,
> >
> > On 28 July 2015 at 23:28, Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2015-07-28 at 17:23 +0000, Bhushan Bharat wrote:
> > >> Hi Alex,
> > >>
> > >> > -----Original Message-----
> > >> > From: Alex Williamson [mailto:alex.williamson@redhat.com]
> > >> > Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 9:52 PM
> > >> > To: Pranavkumar Sawargaonkar
> > >> > Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org; kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu; linux-arm-
> > >> > kernel@lists.infradead.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
> > >> > christoffer.dall@linaro.org; marc.zyngier@arm.com;
> > >> > will.deacon@arm.com; bhelgaas@google.com; arnd@arndb.de;
> > >> > rob.herring@linaro.org; eric.auger@linaro.org; patches@apm.com;
> > >> > Bhushan Bharat-R65777; Yoder
> > >> > Stuart-B08248
> > >> > Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] VFIO: Add virtual MSI doorbell support.
> > >> >
> > >> > 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,
> > >>
> > >> We probably need a mix of both to support Freescale PowerPC and ARM
> > >> based machines.
> > >> In this mix mode kernel vfio driver will reserve some IOVA for
> > >> mapping MSI page/s.
> > >
> > > If vfio is reserving pages independently from the user, this becomes
> > > what Marc called "shaping" the VM and what x86 effectively does. An
> > > interface extension should expose these implicit regions so the user
> > > can avoid them for DMA memory mapping.
> > >
> > >> If any other iova mapping will overlap with this then it will return
> > >> error and user-space. Ideally this should be choosen in such a way
> > >> that it never overlap, which is easy on some systems but can be
> > >> tricky on some other system like Freescale PowerPC. This is not
> > >> sufficient for at-least Freescale PowerPC based SOC. This is because
> > >> of hardware limitation, where we need to fit this reserved iova
> > >> address within aperture decided by user-space. So if we allow
> > >> user-space to change this reserved iova address to a value decided by
> > >> user-spece itself then we can support both ARM/PowerPC based
> > solutions.
> > >
> > > Yes, that's my intention, to allow userspace to specify the reserved
> > > region. I believe you have some additional restrictions on the number
> > > of MSI banks available and whether MSI banks can be shared, but I
> > > would hope that doesn't preclude a shared interface with ARM.
> > >
> > >> I have some implementation ready/tested with this approach and if
> > >> this approach looks good then I can submit a RFC patch.
> > >
> > > Yes, please post. Thanks,
> >
> > Could you please share a tentative timeline by which you will be posting your
> > patches ?
>
> I have not touched that code for a while, I am planning to send the
> patch in couple of weeks.

Have we made any progress on this subject? It looks like a lot of time
has passed, but I haven't seen anything. Did I miss it?

Thanks,

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