Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/4] vfio: Add IOPF support for VFIO passthrough
To:     "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
CC:     Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>,
        "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>,
        Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>,
        Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>,
        "wanghaibin.wang@huawei.com" <wanghaibin.wang@huawei.com>,
        "yuzenghui@huawei.com" <yuzenghui@huawei.com>,
        "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@intel.com>,
        "Pan, Jacob jun" <jacob.jun.pan@intel.com>
References: <20210125090402.1429-1-lushenming@huawei.com>
 <20210129155730.3a1d49c5@omen.home.shazbot.org>
 <MWHPR11MB188684B42632FD0B9B5CA1C08CB69@MWHPR11MB1886.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <47bf7612-4fb0-c0bb-fa19-24c4e3d01d3f@huawei.com>
 <MWHPR11MB1886C71A751B48EF626CAC938CB39@MWHPR11MB1886.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <4f904b23-e434-d42b-15a9-a410f3b4edb9@huawei.com>
 <MWHPR11MB188656845973A662A7E96BDA8C699@MWHPR11MB1886.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <c152f419-acc4-ee33-dab1-ff0f9baf2f24@huawei.com>
 <MWHPR11MB1886498515951BCE98F9336A8C699@MWHPR11MB1886.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From:   Shenming Lu <lushenming@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <4e2c9f05-9a87-4aca-71d3-c329d7638aae@huawei.com>
Date:   Thu, 18 Mar 2021 20:47:16 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.2.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <MWHPR11MB1886498515951BCE98F9336A8C699@MWHPR11MB1886.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2021/3/18 20:32, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> From: Shenming Lu <lushenming@huawei.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 7:54 PM
>>
>> On 2021/3/18 17:07, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>>>> From: Shenming Lu <lushenming@huawei.com>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 3:53 PM
>>>>
>>>> On 2021/2/4 14:52, Tian, Kevin wrote:>>> In reality, many
>>>>>>> devices allow I/O faulting only in selective contexts. However, there
>>>>>>> is no standard way (e.g. PCISIG) for the device to report whether
>>>>>>> arbitrary I/O fault is allowed. Then we may have to maintain device
>>>>>>> specific knowledge in software, e.g. in an opt-in table to list devices
>>>>>>> which allows arbitrary faults. For devices which only support selective
>>>>>>> faulting, a mediator (either through vendor extensions on vfio-pci-core
>>>>>>> or a mdev wrapper) might be necessary to help lock down non-
>> faultable
>>>>>>> mappings and then enable faulting on the rest mappings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For devices which only support selective faulting, they could tell it to the
>>>>>> IOMMU driver and let it filter out non-faultable faults? Do I get it wrong?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not exactly to IOMMU driver. There is already a vfio_pin_pages() for
>>>>> selectively page-pinning. The matter is that 'they' imply some device
>>>>> specific logic to decide which pages must be pinned and such knowledge
>>>>> is outside of VFIO.
>>>>>
>>>>> From enabling p.o.v we could possibly do it in phased approach. First
>>>>> handles devices which tolerate arbitrary DMA faults, and then extends
>>>>> to devices with selective-faulting. The former is simpler, but with one
>>>>> main open whether we want to maintain such device IDs in a static
>>>>> table in VFIO or rely on some hints from other components (e.g. PF
>>>>> driver in VF assignment case). Let's see how Alex thinks about it.
>>>>
>>>> Hi Kevin,
>>>>
>>>> You mentioned selective-faulting some time ago. I still have some doubt
>>>> about it:
>>>> There is already a vfio_pin_pages() which is used for limiting the IOMMU
>>>> group dirty scope to pinned pages, could it also be used for indicating
>>>> the faultable scope is limited to the pinned pages and the rest mappings
>>>> is non-faultable that should be pinned and mapped immediately? But it
>>>> seems to be a little weird and not exactly to what you meant... I will
>>>> be grateful if you can help to explain further. :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> The opposite, i.e. the vendor driver uses vfio_pin_pages to lock down
>>> pages that are not faultable (based on its specific knowledge) and then
>>> the rest memory becomes faultable.
>>
>> Ahh...
>> Thus, from the perspective of VFIO IOMMU, if IOPF enabled for such device,
>> only the page faults within the pinned range are valid in the registered
>> iommu fault handler...
>> I have another question here, for the IOMMU backed devices, they are
>> already
>> all pinned and mapped when attaching, is there a need to call
>> vfio_pin_pages()
>> to lock down pages for them? Did I miss something?...
>>
> 
> If a device is marked as supporting I/O page fault (fully or selectively), 
> there should be no pinning at attach or DMA_MAP time (suppose as 
> this series does). Then for devices with selective-faulting its vendor 
> driver will lock down the pages which are not faultable at run-time, 
> e.g. when intercepting guest registration of a ring buffer...

Get it. Thanks a lot for this! :-)

Shenming

> 
> Thanks
> Kevin
>