Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v1 3/3] intel-iommu: search iotlb for levels supported by the address width.

[Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>]

On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 05:25:48PM +0800, Yu Zhang wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 04:51:22PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 07:49:47PM +0800, Yu Zhang wrote:
> > > This patch updates vtd_lookup_iotlb() to search cached mappings only
> > > for all page levels supported by address width of current vIOMMU. Also,
> > > to cover 57-bit width, the shift of source id(VTD_IOTLB_SID_SHIFT) and
> > > of page level(VTD_IOTLB_LVL_SHIFT) are enlarged by 9 - the stride of
> > > one paging structure level.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@linux.intel.com>
> > > ---
> > > Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
> > > Cc: Marcel Apfelbaum <marcel.apfelbaum@gmail.com>
> > > Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> 
> > > Cc: Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net> 
> > > Cc: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
> > > Cc: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > >  hw/i386/intel_iommu.c          | 5 +++--
> > >  hw/i386/intel_iommu_internal.h | 7 ++-----
> > >  2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c b/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c
> > > index 9cdf755..ce7e17e 100644
> > > --- a/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c
> > > +++ b/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c
> > > @@ -254,11 +254,12 @@ static uint64_t vtd_get_iotlb_gfn(hwaddr addr, uint32_t level)
> > >  static VTDIOTLBEntry *vtd_lookup_iotlb(IntelIOMMUState *s, uint16_t source_id,
> > >                                         hwaddr addr)
> > >  {
> > > -    VTDIOTLBEntry *entry;
> > > +    VTDIOTLBEntry *entry = NULL;
> > >      uint64_t key;
> > >      int level;
> > > +    int max_level = (s->aw_bits - VTD_PAGE_SHIFT_4K) / VTD_SL_LEVEL_BITS;
> > >  
> > > -    for (level = VTD_SL_PT_LEVEL; level < VTD_SL_PML4_LEVEL; level++) {
> > > +    for (level = VTD_SL_PT_LEVEL; level < max_level; level++) {
> > 
> > My understanding of current IOTLB is that it only caches the last
> > level of mapping, say:
> > 
> >   - level 1: 4K page
> >   - level 2: 2M page
> >   - level 3: 1G page
> > 
> > So we don't check against level=4 even if x-aw-bits=48 is specified.
> > 
> > Here does it mean that we're going to have... 512G iommu huge pages?
> > 
> 
> No. My bad, I misunderstood this routine. And now I believe we do not
> need this patch. :-)

Yeah good to confirm that :-)

Regards,

-- 
Peter Xu