[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 3/3] IOMMU: Integrate between VFIO and vIOMMU

From: Alex Williamson
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 3/3] IOMMU: Integrate between VFIO and vIOMMU to support device assignment
Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 10:02:20 -0600

On Sat, 28 May 2016 10:52:58 +0000
"Aviv B.D." <address@hidden> wrote:

> Hi,
> Your idea to search the relevent VTDAddressSpace and call it's notifier
> will
> probably work. Next week I'll try to implement it (for now with the costly
> scan
> of each context).

I think an optimization we can make is to use pci_for_each_bus() and
pci_for_each_device() to scan only context entries where devices are
present.  Then for each context entry, retrieve the DID, if it matches
the invalidation domain_id, retrieve the VTDAddressSpace and perform a
memory_region_notify_iommu() using VTDAddressSpace.iommu.  Still
horribly inefficient, but an improvement over walking all context
entries and avoids gratuitous callbacks between unrelated drivers in

Overall, I have very little faith that this will be the only change
required to make this work though.  For instance, if a device is added
or removed from a domain, where is that accounted for?  Ideally this
should trigger the region_add/region_del listener callbacks, but I
don't see how that works with how VT-d creates a fixed VTDAddressSpace
per device, and in fact how our QEMU memory model doesn't allow the
address space of a device to be dynamically aliased against other
address spaces or really changed at all. 

> I still not sure if populating the MemoryRegion will suffice for hot plug
> vfio
> device but i'll try to look into it.
> As far as I understand the memory_region_iommu_replay function, it still
> scans
> the whole 64bit address space, and therefore may hang the VM for a long
> time.

Then we need to fix that problem, one option might be to make a replay
callback on MemoryRegionIOMMUOps that walks the page tables for a given
context entry rather than blindly traversing a 64bit address space.  We
can't simply ignore the issue by #ifdef'ing out the code.  I suspect
there's a lot more involved to make VT-d interact properly with a
physical device than what's been proposed so far.  At every
invalidation, we need to figure out what's changed and update the host
mappings.  We also need better, more dynamic address space management
to make the virtual hardware reflect physical hardware when we enable
things like passthrough mode or have multiple devices sharing an iommu
domain.  I think we're just barely scratching the surface here.  Thanks,


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]