From: Ethan Chen via <qemu-devel@nongnu.org> To: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com>, "David Hildenbrand" <david@redhat.com>, "Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@linaro.org>, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>, "Igor Mammedov" <imammedo@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] system/physmem: IOMMU: Invoke the translate_size function if it is implemented Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2023 14:00:54 +0800 [thread overview] Message-ID: <ZT9GlTLtTOT3WUif@ethan84-VirtualBox> (raw) In-Reply-To: <ZTvfECmO4JFZ/aIp@x1n> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 12:13:50PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote: > Add cc list. > > On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 12:02:24PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 11:28:36AM +0800, Ethan Chen wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 10:20:41AM -0400, Peter Xu wrote: > > > > Could you elaborate why is that important? In what use case? > > > I was not involved in the formulation of the IOPMP specification, but I'll try > > > to explain my perspective. IOPMP use the same the idea as PMP. "The matching > > > PMP entry must match all bytes of an access, or the access fails." > > > > > > > > > > > Consider IOVA mapped for address range iova=[0, 4K] only, here we have a > > > > DMA request with range=[0, 8K]. Now my understanding is what you want to > > > > achieve is don't trigger the DMA to [0, 4K] and fail the whole [0, 8K] > > > > request. > > > > > > > > Can we just fail at the latter DMA [4K, 8K] when it happens? After all, > > > > IIUC a device can split the 0-8K DMA into two smaller DMAs, then the 1st > > > > chunk can succeed then if it falls in 0-4K. Some further explanation of > > > > the failure use case could be helpful. > > > > > > IOPMP can only detect partially hit in an access. DMA device will split a > > > large DMA transfer to small DMA transfers base on target and DMA transfer > > > width, so partially hit error only happens when an access cross the boundary. > > > But to ensure that an access is only within one entry is still important. > > > For example, an entry may mean permission of a device memory region. We do > > > not want to see one DMA transfer can access mutilple devices, although DMA > > > have permissions from multiple entries. > > > > I was expecting a DMA request can be fulfilled successfully as long as the > > DMA translations are valid for the whole range of the request, even if the > > requested range may include two separate translated targets or more, each > > point to different places (either RAM, or other devicie's MMIO regions). IOPMP is used to check DMA translation is vaild or not. In IOPMP specification , a translation access more than one entry is not invalid. Though it is not recommand, user can create an IOPMP entry contains mutiple places to make this kind translations valid. > > > > AFAIK currently QEMU memory model will automatically split that large > > request into two or more smaller requests, and fulfill them separately by > > two/more IOMMU translations, with its memory access dispatched to the > > specific memory regions. Because of requests may be split, I need a method to take the original request information to IOPMP. > > > > The example you provided doesn't seem to be RISCV specific. Do you mean it > > is a generic requirement from PCI/PCIe POV, or is it only a restriction of > > IOPMP? If it's a valid PCI restriction, does it mean that all the rest > > IOMMU implementations in QEMU currently are broken? > > It only a restriction of IOPMP. Thanks, Ethan Chen
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Ethan Chen <ethan84@andestech.com> To: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com>, "David Hildenbrand" <david@redhat.com>, "Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@linaro.org>, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>, "Igor Mammedov" <imammedo@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] system/physmem: IOMMU: Invoke the translate_size function if it is implemented Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2023 14:00:54 +0800 [thread overview] Message-ID: <ZT9GlTLtTOT3WUif@ethan84-VirtualBox> (raw) Message-ID: <20231030060054.mfBa37hn3EajRjtSkOtCB5HyxaFsOi93Ly2HNKFl6ZM@z> (raw) In-Reply-To: <ZTvfECmO4JFZ/aIp@x1n> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 12:13:50PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote: > Add cc list. > > On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 12:02:24PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 11:28:36AM +0800, Ethan Chen wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 10:20:41AM -0400, Peter Xu wrote: > > > > Could you elaborate why is that important? In what use case? > > > I was not involved in the formulation of the IOPMP specification, but I'll try > > > to explain my perspective. IOPMP use the same the idea as PMP. "The matching > > > PMP entry must match all bytes of an access, or the access fails." > > > > > > > > > > > Consider IOVA mapped for address range iova=[0, 4K] only, here we have a > > > > DMA request with range=[0, 8K]. Now my understanding is what you want to > > > > achieve is don't trigger the DMA to [0, 4K] and fail the whole [0, 8K] > > > > request. > > > > > > > > Can we just fail at the latter DMA [4K, 8K] when it happens? After all, > > > > IIUC a device can split the 0-8K DMA into two smaller DMAs, then the 1st > > > > chunk can succeed then if it falls in 0-4K. Some further explanation of > > > > the failure use case could be helpful. > > > > > > IOPMP can only detect partially hit in an access. DMA device will split a > > > large DMA transfer to small DMA transfers base on target and DMA transfer > > > width, so partially hit error only happens when an access cross the boundary. > > > But to ensure that an access is only within one entry is still important. > > > For example, an entry may mean permission of a device memory region. We do > > > not want to see one DMA transfer can access mutilple devices, although DMA > > > have permissions from multiple entries. > > > > I was expecting a DMA request can be fulfilled successfully as long as the > > DMA translations are valid for the whole range of the request, even if the > > requested range may include two separate translated targets or more, each > > point to different places (either RAM, or other devicie's MMIO regions). IOPMP is used to check DMA translation is vaild or not. In IOPMP specification , a translation access more than one entry is not invalid. Though it is not recommand, user can create an IOPMP entry contains mutiple places to make this kind translations valid. > > > > AFAIK currently QEMU memory model will automatically split that large > > request into two or more smaller requests, and fulfill them separately by > > two/more IOMMU translations, with its memory access dispatched to the > > specific memory regions. Because of requests may be split, I need a method to take the original request information to IOPMP. > > > > The example you provided doesn't seem to be RISCV specific. Do you mean it > > is a generic requirement from PCI/PCIe POV, or is it only a restriction of > > IOPMP? If it's a valid PCI restriction, does it mean that all the rest > > IOMMU implementations in QEMU currently are broken? > > It only a restriction of IOPMP. Thanks, Ethan Chen
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-10-30 6:02 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2023-10-25 5:14 [PATCH 0/6] Support RISC-V IOPMP Ethan Chen via 2023-10-25 5:14 ` Ethan Chen 2023-10-25 5:14 ` [PATCH 1/6] exec/memory: Introduce the translate_size function within the IOMMU class Ethan Chen via 2023-10-25 5:14 ` Ethan Chen 2023-10-25 14:56 ` David Hildenbrand 2023-10-26 7:14 ` Ethan Chen via 2023-10-26 7:14 ` Ethan Chen 2023-10-26 7:26 ` David Hildenbrand 2023-10-25 5:14 ` [PATCH 2/6] system/physmem: IOMMU: Invoke the translate_size function if it is implemented Ethan Chen via 2023-10-25 5:14 ` Ethan Chen 2023-10-25 15:14 ` Peter Xu 2023-10-26 6:48 ` Ethan Chen via 2023-10-26 6:48 ` Ethan Chen 2023-10-26 14:20 ` Peter Xu 2023-10-27 3:28 ` Ethan Chen via 2023-10-27 3:28 ` Ethan Chen 2023-10-27 16:02 ` Peter Xu 2023-10-27 16:13 ` Peter Xu 2023-10-30 6:00 ` Ethan Chen via [this message] 2023-10-30 6:00 ` Ethan Chen 2023-10-30 15:02 ` Peter Xu 2023-10-31 8:52 ` Ethan Chen via 2023-10-31 8:52 ` Ethan Chen 2023-10-25 5:14 ` [PATCH 3/6] exec/memattrs: Add iopmp source id to MemTxAttrs Ethan Chen via 2023-10-25 5:14 ` Ethan Chen 2023-10-25 5:14 ` [PATCH 4/6] Add RISC-V IOPMP support Ethan Chen via 2023-10-25 5:14 ` Ethan Chen 2023-10-25 5:14 ` [PATCH 5/6] hw/dma: Add Andes ATCDMAC300 support Ethan Chen via 2023-10-25 5:14 ` Ethan Chen 2023-10-25 5:14 ` [PATCH 6/6] hw/riscv/virt: Add IOPMP support Ethan Chen via 2023-10-25 5:14 ` Ethan Chen 2023-10-26 12:02 ` [PATCH 0/6] Support RISC-V IOPMP Ethan Chen via 2023-10-26 12:02 ` Ethan Chen
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=ZT9GlTLtTOT3WUif@ethan84-VirtualBox \ --to=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \ --cc=david@redhat.com \ --cc=ethan84@andestech.com \ --cc=imammedo@redhat.com \ --cc=mst@redhat.com \ --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \ --cc=peterx@redhat.com \ --cc=philmd@linaro.org \ /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: linkBe 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).