Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] hw/arm/virt: Add support for user-creatable nested SMMUv3

[Eric Auger]

Hi Nicolin, Shameer,

On 2/3/25 7:50 PM, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 05:54:56PM +0100, Eric Auger wrote:
>> On 1/9/25 5:45 AM, Nicolin Chen wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 10:01:29AM +0000, Shameerali Kolothum Thodi wrote:
>>>> And patches prior to this commit adds that support: 
>>>> 4ccdbe3: ("cover-letter: Add HW accelerated nesting support for arm
>>>> SMMUv3")
>>>>
>>>> Nicolin is soon going to send out those for review. Or I can include
>>>> those in this series so that it gives a complete picture. Nicolin?
>>> Just found that I forgot to reply this one...sorry
>>>
>>> I asked Don/Eric to take over that vSMMU series:
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/Zy0jiPItu8A3wNTL@Asurada-Nvidia/
>>> (The majority of my effort has been still on the kernel side:
>>>  previously vIOMMU/vDEVICE, and now vEVENTQ/MSI/vCMDQ..)
>>>
>>> Don/Eric, is there any update from your side?
>> To be honest we have not much progressed so far. On my end I can
>> dedicate some cycles now. I currently try to understand how and what
>> subset I can respin and which test setup can be used. I will come back
>> to you next week.
> In summary, we will have the following series:
> 1) HWPT uAPI patches in backends/iommufd.c (Zhenzhong or Shameer)
>    
> https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/SJ0PR11MB6744943702EB5798EC9B3B9992E02@SJ0PR11MB6744.namprd11.prod.outlook.com/
> 2) vIOMMU uAPI patches in backends/iommufd.c (I will rebase/send)
for 1 and 2, are you taking about the "Add VIOMMU infrastructure support
" series in Shameer's branch: private-smmuv3-nested-dev-rfc-v1.
Sorry I may instead refer to NVidia or Intel's branch but I am not sure
about the last ones.
> 3) vSMMUv3 patches for HW-acc/nesting (Hoping Don/you could take over)
We can start sending it upstream assuming we have a decent test environment.

However in
https://lore.kernel.org/all/329445b2f68a47269292aefb34584375@huawei.com/

Shameer suggested he may include it in his SMMU multi instance series.
What do you both prefer?

Eric


> 4) Shameer's work on "-device" in ARM virt.c
> 5) vEVENTQ for fault injection (if time is right, squash into 2/3)
>
> Perhaps, 3/4 would come in a different order, or maybe 4 could split
> into a few patches changing "-device" (sending before 3) and then a
> few other patches adding multi-vSMMU support (sending after 3).
>
> My latest QEMU branch for reference:
> https://github.com/nicolinc/qemu/commits/wip/for_iommufd_veventq-v6
> It hasn't integrated Shameer's and Nathan's work though..
> For testing, use this kernel branch:
> https://github.com/nicolinc/iommufd/commits/iommufd_veventq-v6-with-rmr
>
> I think we'd need to build a shared branch by integrating the latest
> series in the list above.
>
> Thanks
> Nicolin
>