On 27/11/2018 18:53, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 06:10:46PM +0000, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
>> On 27/11/2018 18:04, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 05:50:50PM +0000, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
>>>> On 23/11/2018 22:02, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>>> +/*
>>>>>> + * __viommu_sync_req - Complete all in-flight requests
>>>>>> + *
>>>>>> + * Wait for all added requests to complete. When this function returns,
>>>>>> all
>>>>>> + * requests that were in-flight at the time of the call have completed.
>>>>>> + */
>>>>>> +static int __viommu_sync_req(struct viommu_dev *viommu)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> + int ret = 0;
>>>>>> + unsigned int len;
>>>>>> + size_t write_len;
>>>>>> + struct viommu_request *req;
>>>>>> + struct virtqueue *vq = viommu->vqs[VIOMMU_REQUEST_VQ];
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + assert_spin_locked(&viommu->request_lock);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + virtqueue_kick(vq);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + while (!list_empty(&viommu->requests)) {
>>>>>> + len = 0;
>>>>>> + req = virtqueue_get_buf(vq, &len);
>>>>>> + if (!req)
>>>>>> + continue;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + if (!len)
>>>>>> + viommu_set_req_status(req->buf, req->len,
>>>>>> + VIRTIO_IOMMU_S_IOERR);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + write_len = req->len - req->write_offset;
>>>>>> + if (req->writeback && len == write_len)
>>>>>> + memcpy(req->writeback, req->buf +
>>>>>> req->write_offset,
>>>>>> + write_len);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + list_del(&req->list);
>>>>>> + kfree(req);
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't notice this in the past but it seems this will spin
>>>>> with interrupts disabled until host handles the request.
>>>>> Please do not do this - host execution can be another
>>>>> task that needs the same host CPU. This will then disable
>>>>> interrupts for a very very long time.
>>>>
>>>> In the guest yes, but that doesn't prevent the host from running another
>>>> task right?
>>>
>>> Doesn't prevent it but it will delay it significantly
>>> until scheduler decides to kick the VCPU task out.
>>>
>>>> My tests run fine when QEMU is bound to a single CPU, even
>>>> though vcpu and viommu run in different threads
>>>>
>>>>> What to do then? Queue in software and wake up task.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately I can't do anything here, because IOMMU drivers can't
>>>> sleep in the iommu_map() or iommu_unmap() path.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is the same
>>>> for all IOMMU drivers. That's because the DMA API allows drivers to call
>>>> some functions with interrupts disabled. For example
>>>> Documentation/DMA-API-HOWTO.txt allows dma_alloc_coherent() and
>>>> dma_unmap_single() to be called in interrupt context.
>>>
>>> In fact I don't really understand how it's supposed to
>>> work at all: you only sync when ring is full.
>>> So host may not have seen your map request if ring
>>> is not full.
>>> Why is it safe to use the address with a device then?
>>
>> viommu_map() calls viommu_send_req_sync(), which does the sync
>> immediately after adding the MAP request.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jean
>
> I see. So it happens on every request. Maybe you should clear
> event index then. This way if exits are disabled you know that
> host is processing the ring. Event index is good for when
> you don't care when it will be processed, you just want
> to reduce number of exits as much as possible.
>
I think that's already the case: since we don't attach a callback to the
request queue, VRING_AVAIL_F_NO_INTERRUPT is set in avail_flags_shadow,
which causes the used event index to stay clear.
Thanks,
Jean
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
