Re: [PATCH v6 5/9] vfio/iommufd: Probe and request hwpt dirty tracking capability

[Joao Martins <joao.m.martins@oracle.com>]

On 23/07/2024 09:09, Eric Auger wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/23/24 10:00, Joao Martins wrote:
>> On 23/07/2024 08:50, Eric Auger wrote:
>>> Hi Joao,
>>>
>>> On 7/22/24 23:13, Joao Martins wrote:
>>>> In preparation to using the dirty tracking UAPI, probe whether the IOMMU
>>>> supports dirty tracking. This is done via the data stored in
>>>> hiod::caps::hw_caps initialized from GET_HW_INFO.
>>>>
>>>> Qemu doesn't know if VF dirty tracking is supported when allocating
>>>> hardware pagetable in iommufd_cdev_autodomains_get(). This is because
>>>> VFIODevice migration state hasn't been initialized *yet* hence it can't pick
>>>> between VF dirty tracking vs IOMMU dirty tracking. So, if IOMMU supports
>>>> dirty tracking it always creates HWPTs with IOMMU_HWPT_ALLOC_DIRTY_TRACKING
>>>> even if later on VFIOMigration decides to use VF dirty tracking instead.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Joao Martins <joao.m.martins@oracle.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  include/hw/vfio/vfio-common.h |  2 ++
>>>>  hw/vfio/iommufd.c             | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>  2 files changed, 22 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/hw/vfio/vfio-common.h b/include/hw/vfio/vfio-common.h
>>>> index 4e44b26d3c45..1e02c98b09ba 100644
>>>> --- a/include/hw/vfio/vfio-common.h
>>>> +++ b/include/hw/vfio/vfio-common.h
>>>> @@ -97,6 +97,7 @@ typedef struct IOMMUFDBackend IOMMUFDBackend;
>>>>  
>>>>  typedef struct VFIOIOASHwpt {
>>>>      uint32_t hwpt_id;
>>>> +    uint32_t hwpt_flags;
>>>>      QLIST_HEAD(, VFIODevice) device_list;
>>>>      QLIST_ENTRY(VFIOIOASHwpt) next;
>>>>  } VFIOIOASHwpt;
>>>> @@ -139,6 +140,7 @@ typedef struct VFIODevice {
>>>>      OnOffAuto pre_copy_dirty_page_tracking;
>>>>      bool dirty_pages_supported;
>>>>      bool dirty_tracking;
>>>> +    bool iommu_dirty_tracking;
>>>>      HostIOMMUDevice *hiod;
>>>>      int devid;
>>>>      IOMMUFDBackend *iommufd;
>>>> diff --git a/hw/vfio/iommufd.c b/hw/vfio/iommufd.c
>>>> index 2324bf892c56..7afea0b041ed 100644
>>>> --- a/hw/vfio/iommufd.c
>>>> +++ b/hw/vfio/iommufd.c
>>>> @@ -110,6 +110,11 @@ static void iommufd_cdev_unbind_and_disconnect(VFIODevice *vbasedev)
>>>>      iommufd_backend_disconnect(vbasedev->iommufd);
>>>>  }
>>>>  
>>>> +static bool iommufd_hwpt_dirty_tracking(VFIOIOASHwpt *hwpt)
>>>> +{
>>>> +    return hwpt && hwpt->hwpt_flags & IOMMU_HWPT_ALLOC_DIRTY_TRACKING;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>>  static int iommufd_cdev_getfd(const char *sysfs_path, Error **errp)
>>>>  {
>>>>      ERRP_GUARD();
>>>> @@ -246,6 +251,17 @@ static bool iommufd_cdev_autodomains_get(VFIODevice *vbasedev,
>>>>          }
>>>>      }
>>>>  
>>>> +    /*
>>>> +     * This is quite early and VFIO Migration state isn't yet fully
>>>> +     * initialized, thus rely only on IOMMU hardware capabilities as to
>>>> +     * whether IOMMU dirty tracking is going to be requested. Later
>>>> +     * vfio_migration_realize() may decide to use VF dirty tracking
>>>> +     * instead.
>>>> +     */
>>>> +    if (vbasedev->hiod->caps.hw_caps & IOMMU_HW_CAP_DIRTY_TRACKING) {
>>>> +        flags = IOMMU_HWPT_ALLOC_DIRTY_TRACKING;
>>>> +    }
>>>> +
>>>>      if (!iommufd_backend_alloc_hwpt(iommufd, vbasedev->devid,
>>>>                                      container->ioas_id, flags,
>>>>                                      IOMMU_HWPT_DATA_NONE, 0, NULL,
>>>> @@ -255,6 +271,7 @@ static bool iommufd_cdev_autodomains_get(VFIODevice *vbasedev,
>>>>  
>>>>      hwpt = g_malloc0(sizeof(*hwpt));
>>>>      hwpt->hwpt_id = hwpt_id;
>>>> +    hwpt->hwpt_flags = flags;
>>>>      QLIST_INIT(&hwpt->device_list);
>>>>  
>>>>      ret = iommufd_cdev_attach_ioas_hwpt(vbasedev, hwpt->hwpt_id, errp);
>>>> @@ -265,8 +282,11 @@ static bool iommufd_cdev_autodomains_get(VFIODevice *vbasedev,
>>>>      }
>>>>  
>>>>      vbasedev->hwpt = hwpt;
>>>> +    vbasedev->iommu_dirty_tracking = iommufd_hwpt_dirty_tracking(hwpt);
>>>>      QLIST_INSERT_HEAD(&hwpt->device_list, vbasedev, hwpt_next);
>>>>      QLIST_INSERT_HEAD(&container->hwpt_list, hwpt, next);
>>>> +    container->bcontainer.dirty_pages_supported |=
>>>> +                                vbasedev->iommu_dirty_tracking;
>>> Is it possible to have several devices with different
>>>
>>> iommu_dirty_tracking value in the same container? In other words would they be attached to different container/ioas?
>>>
>> In theory, yes, they can be in the same container/ioas. But I guess with IOMMUFD
>> it's possible that we can allocate different containers for different devices
>> given that we can manipulate/pass a different IOMMUFD object.
> Yes I would have suspected they would end up in different
> containers/ioas but I am not sure.
>>
>> In pratice I don't know if such HW platforms even exist where different IOMMU
>> instances present different value of dirty tracking, given that this is a IOMMU
>> feature, rather than endpoint dependent. In x86 it's homogeneous, and likely on
>> smmuv3 server too. There are indeed endpoint related features which may be
> on ARM you may have several SMMU instances. I do agree that the
> likelyhood of those instances having heterogeneous dirty page tracking
> support is low but well I don't know. Maybe we should add a wanrning at
> least, later on if this case arises.
> 

Yeap that's sensible as it's not immediately obvious. Something like:

@@ -345,6 +346,11 @@ static bool iommufd_cdev_autodomains_get(VFIODevice *vbasedev,
     QLIST_INSERT_HEAD(&container->hwpt_list, hwpt, next);
     container->bcontainer.dirty_pages_supported |=
                                 vbasedev->iommu_dirty_tracking;
+    if (container->bcontainer.dirty_pages_supported &&
+        !vbasedev->iommu_dirty_tracking) {
+       warn_report("IOMMU instance for device %s doesn't support dirty tracking",
+                    vbasedev->name);
+    }
     return true;
 }