> From: Liu, Yi L <yi.l....@intel.com>
> Sent: Monday, June 15, 2020 2:05 PM
>
> Hi Kevin,
>
> > From: Tian, Kevin <kevin.t...@intel.com>
> > Sent: Monday, June 15, 2020 9:23 AM
> >
> > > From: Liu, Yi L <yi.l....@intel.com>
> > > Sent: Friday, June 12, 2020 5:05 PM
> > >
> > > Hi Alex,
> > >
> > > > From: Alex Williamson <alex.william...@redhat.com>
> > > > Sent: Friday, June 12, 2020 3:30 AM
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 05:15:21 -0700
> > > > Liu Yi L <yi.l....@intel.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > IOMMUs that support nesting translation needs report the
> > > > > capability info to userspace, e.g. the format of first level/stage
> > > > > paging
> > structures.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cc: Kevin Tian <kevin.t...@intel.com>
> > > > > CC: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun....@linux.intel.com>
> > > > > Cc: Alex Williamson <alex.william...@redhat.com>
> > > > > Cc: Eric Auger <eric.au...@redhat.com>
> > > > > Cc: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-phili...@linaro.org>
> > > > > Cc: Joerg Roedel <j...@8bytes.org>
> > > > > Cc: Lu Baolu <baolu...@linux.intel.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Liu Yi L <yi.l....@intel.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun....@linux.intel.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > @Jean, Eric: as nesting was introduced for ARM, but looks like no
> > > > > actual user of it. right? So I'm wondering if we can reuse
> > > > > DOMAIN_ATTR_NESTING to retrieve nesting info? how about your
> > > opinions?
> > > > >
> > > > > include/linux/iommu.h | 1 +
> > > > > include/uapi/linux/iommu.h | 34
> > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > 2 files changed, 35 insertions(+)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/iommu.h b/include/linux/iommu.h index
> > > > > 78a26ae..f6e4b49 100644
> > > > > --- a/include/linux/iommu.h
> > > > > +++ b/include/linux/iommu.h
> > > > > @@ -126,6 +126,7 @@ enum iommu_attr {
> > > > > DOMAIN_ATTR_FSL_PAMUV1,
> > > > > DOMAIN_ATTR_NESTING, /* two stages of translation */
> > > > > DOMAIN_ATTR_DMA_USE_FLUSH_QUEUE,
> > > > > + DOMAIN_ATTR_NESTING_INFO,
> > > > > DOMAIN_ATTR_MAX,
> > > > > };
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/iommu.h
> > > > > b/include/uapi/linux/iommu.h index 303f148..02eac73 100644
> > > > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/iommu.h
> > > > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/iommu.h
> > > > > @@ -332,4 +332,38 @@ struct iommu_gpasid_bind_data {
> > > > > };
> > > > > };
> > > > >
> > > > > +struct iommu_nesting_info {
> > > > > + __u32 size;
> > > > > + __u32 format;
> > > > > + __u32 features;
> > > > > +#define IOMMU_NESTING_FEAT_SYSWIDE_PASID (1 << 0)
> > > > > +#define IOMMU_NESTING_FEAT_BIND_PGTBL (1 << 1)
> > > > > +#define IOMMU_NESTING_FEAT_CACHE_INVLD (1 <<
> 2)
> > > > > + __u32 flags;
> > > > > + __u8 data[];
> > > > > +};
> > > > > +
> > > > > +/*
> > > > > + * @flags: VT-d specific flags. Currently reserved for future
> > > > > + * extension.
> > > > > + * @addr_width: The output addr width of first level/stage
> > translation
> > > > > + * @pasid_bits: Maximum supported PASID bits, 0 represents
> no
> > > PASID
> > > > > + * support.
> > > > > + * @cap_reg: Describe basic capabilities as defined in VT-d
> > > capability
> > > > > + * register.
> > > > > + * @cap_mask: Mark valid capability bits in @cap_reg.
> > > > > + * @ecap_reg: Describe the extended capabilities as defined
> > > > > in VT-d
> > > > > + * extended capability register.
> > > > > + * @ecap_mask: Mark the valid capability bits in @ecap_reg.
> > > >
> > > > Please explain this a little further, why do we need to tell
> > > > userspace about cap/ecap register bits that aren't valid through this
> interface?
> > > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > we only want to tell userspace about the bits marked in the
> cap/ecap_mask.
> > > cap/ecap_mask is kind of white-list of the cap/ecap register.
> > > userspace should only care about the bits in the white-list, for other
> > > bits, it should ignore.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Yi Liu
> >
> > For invalid bits if kernel just clears them then do we still need additional
> mask bits
> > to explicitly mark them out? I guess this might be the point that Alex
> > asked...
>
> For invalid bits, kernel will clear them. But I think the mask bits is
> still necessary. The mask bits tells user space the bits related to
> nesting. Without it, user space may have no idea about it.
userspace should know which bit is related to nesting and then should
check that bit explicitly...
>
> Maybe talk about QEMU usage of the cap/ecap bits would help. QEMU
> vIOMMU
> decides cap/ecap bits according to QEMU cmdline. But not all of them are
> compatible with hardware support. Especially, vIOMMU built on nesting.
> So needs to sync the cap/ecap bits with host side. Based on the mask
> bits, QEMU can compare the cap/ecap bits configured by QEMU cmdline with
> the cap/ecap bits reported by this interface. This comparation is limited
> to the nesting related bits in cap/ecap, the other bits are not included
> and can use the configuration by QEMU cmdline.
I didn't get this explanation. Based on patch [15/15], nesting capabilities
are defined as:
+/* Nesting Support Capability Alignment */
+#define VTD_CAP_FL1GP (1ULL << 56)
+#define VTD_CAP_FL5LP (1ULL << 60)
+#define VTD_ECAP_PRS (1ULL << 29)
+#define VTD_ECAP_ERS (1ULL << 30)
+#define VTD_ECAP_SRS (1ULL << 31)
+#define VTD_ECAP_EAFS (1ULL << 34)
+#define VTD_ECAP_PASID (1ULL << 40)
When Qemu gets an cmdline option it knows which bit out of above
list should be checked against hardware capability. Then just do the
check bit-by-bit. Why do we need mask bit in uapi to tell which bits
are valid? Unless 0/1 doesn't represent validity of some bit. Do we
have such example?
>
> The link below show the current Intel vIOMMU usage on the cap/ecap bits.
> For each assigned device, vIOMMU will compare the nesting related bits in
> cap/ecap and mask out the bits which hardware doesn't support. After the
> machine is intilized, the vIOMMU cap/ecap bits are determined. If user
> hot-plug devices to VM, vIOMMU will fail it if the hardware cap/ecap bits
> behind hot-plug device are not compatible with determined vIOMMU
> cap/ecap
> bits.
>
> https://www.spinics.net/lists/kvm/msg218294.html
>
> Regards,
> Yi Liu
>
> > >
> > > > Alex
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > + */
> > > > > +struct iommu_nesting_info_vtd {
> > > > > + __u32 flags;
> > > > > + __u16 addr_width;
> > > > > + __u16 pasid_bits;
> > > > > + __u64 cap_reg;
> > > > > + __u64 cap_mask;
> > > > > + __u64 ecap_reg;
> > > > > + __u64 ecap_mask;
> > > > > +};
> > > > > +
> > > > > #endif /* _UAPI_IOMMU_H */
