From: Bhushan Bharat <Bharat.Bhushan@freescale.com>
To: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
        Pranavkumar Sawargaonkar <pranavkumar@linaro.org>
CC: "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu" <kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "christoffer.dall@linaro.org" <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>,
        "marc.zyngier@arm.com" <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
        "will.deacon@arm.com" <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        "bhelgaas@google.com" <bhelgaas@google.com>,
        "arnd@arndb.de" <arnd@arndb.de>,
        "rob.herring@linaro.org" <rob.herring@linaro.org>,
        "eric.auger@linaro.org" <eric.auger@linaro.org>,
        "patches@apm.com" <patches@apm.com>,
        Stuart Yoder <stuart.yoder@freescale.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC 0/2] VFIO: Add virtual MSI doorbell support.
Thread-Topic: [RFC 0/2] VFIO: Add virtual MSI doorbell support.
Thread-Index: AQHQyVGEOINbGWv4NkGVayNldIK0kp3xHbOg
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:23:45 +0000
Message-ID: <CY1PR0301MB127660D71378F009918DDDD5908D0@CY1PR0301MB1276.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <1437728590-23126-1-git-send-email-pranavkumar@linaro.org>
 <1438100507.5211.170.camel@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <1438100507.5211.170.camel@redhat.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
cy1pr0301mb0748: X-MS-Exchange-Organization-RulesExecuted
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 28 Jul 2015 17:23:45.9128
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 710a03f5-10f6-4d38-9ff4-a80b81da590d
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY1PR0301MB0748
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by mail.home.local id t6SHNwwB020216
Content-Length: 4274
Lines: 77

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 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.

I have some implementation ready/tested with this approach and if this approach looks good then I can submit a RFC patch.

Thanks
-Bharat
> 
> Alex

????{.n?+???????+%?????ݶ??w??{.n?+????{??G?????{ay?ʇڙ?,j??f???h?????????z_??(?階?ݢj"???m??????G????????????&???~???iO???z??v?^?m????????????I?