On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 6:29 AM Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 3:10 PM Eugenio Perez Martin <epere...@redhat.com> > wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 8:27 AM Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 1:16 AM Eugenio Perez Martin <epere...@redhat.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 4:29 AM Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 6:57 PM Eugenio Perez Martin > > > > > <epere...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 9:29 AM Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 3:56 PM Eugenio Perez Martin > > > > > > > <epere...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 8:47 AM Jason Wang > > > > > > > > <jasow...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 6:03 PM Eugenio Pérez > > > > > > > > > <epere...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The guest may have overlapped memory regions, where > > > > > > > > > > different GPA leads > > > > > > > > > > to the same HVA. This causes a problem when overlapped > > > > > > > > > > regions > > > > > > > > > > (different GPA but same translated HVA) exists in the tree, > > > > > > > > > > as looking > > > > > > > > > > them by HVA will return them twice. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think I don't understand if there's any side effect for > > > > > > > > > shadow virtqueue? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My bad, I totally forgot to put a reference to where this comes > > > > > > > > from. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Si-Wei found that during initialization this sequences of maps / > > > > > > > > unmaps happens [1]: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > HVA GPA IOVA > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > Map > > > > > > > > [0x7f7903e00000, 0x7f7983e00000) [0x0, 0x80000000) [0x1000, > > > > > > > > 0x80000000) > > > > > > > > [0x7f7983e00000, 0x7f9903e00000) [0x100000000, 0x2080000000) > > > > > > > > [0x80001000, 0x2000001000) > > > > > > > > [0x7f7903ea0000, 0x7f7903ec0000) [0xfeda0000, 0xfedc0000) > > > > > > > > [0x2000001000, 0x2000021000) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unmap > > > > > > > > [0x7f7903ea0000, 0x7f7903ec0000) [0xfeda0000, 0xfedc0000) > > > > > > > > [0x1000, > > > > > > > > 0x20000) ??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The third HVA range is contained in the first one, but exposed > > > > > > > > under a > > > > > > > > different GVA (aliased). This is not "flattened" by QEMU, as > > > > > > > > GPA does > > > > > > > > not overlap, only HVA. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At the third chunk unmap, the current algorithm finds the first > > > > > > > > chunk, > > > > > > > > not the second one. This series is the way to tell the > > > > > > > > difference at > > > > > > > > unmap time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2024-04/msg00079.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok, I was wondering if we need to store GPA(GIOVA) to HVA > > > > > > > mappings in > > > > > > > the iova tree to solve this issue completely. Then there won't be > > > > > > > aliasing issues. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm ok to explore that route but this has another problem. Both SVQ > > > > > > vrings and CVQ buffers also need to be addressable by VhostIOVATree, > > > > > > and they do not have GPA. > > > > > > > > > > > > At this moment vhost_svq_translate_addr is able to handle this > > > > > > transparently as we translate vaddr to SVQ IOVA. How can we store > > > > > > these new entries? Maybe a (hwaddr)-1 GPA to signal it has no GPA > > > > > > and > > > > > > then a list to go through other entries (SVQ vaddr and CVQ buffers). > > > > > > > > > > This seems to be tricky. > > > > > > > > > > As discussed, it could be another iova tree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes but there are many ways to add another IOVATree. Let me expand & > > > > recap. > > > > > > > > Option 1 is to simply add another iova tree to VhostShadowVirtqueue. > > > > Let's call it gpa_iova_tree, as opposed to the current iova_tree that > > > > translates from vaddr to SVQ IOVA. To know which one to use is easy at > > > > adding or removing, like in the memory listener, but how to know at > > > > vhost_svq_translate_addr? > > > > > > Then we won't use virtqueue_pop() at all, we need a SVQ version of > > > virtqueue_pop() to translate GPA to SVQ IOVA directly? > > > > > > > The problem is not virtqueue_pop, that's out of the > > vhost_svq_translate_addr. The problem is the need of adding > > conditionals / complexity in all the callers of > > > > > > > > > > The easiest way for me is to rely on memory_region_from_host(). When > > > > vaddr is from the guest, it returns a valid MemoryRegion. When it is > > > > not, it returns NULL. I'm not sure if this is a valid use case, it > > > > just worked in my tests so far. > > > > > > > > Now we have the second problem: The GPA values of the regions of the > > > > two IOVA tree must be unique. We need to be able to find unallocated > > > > regions in SVQ IOVA. At this moment there is only one IOVATree, so > > > > this is done easily by vhost_iova_tree_map_alloc. But it is very > > > > complicated with two trees. > > > > > > Would it be simpler if we decouple the IOVA allocator? For example, we > > > can have a dedicated gtree to track the allocated IOVA ranges. It is > > > shared by both > > > > > > 1) Guest memory (GPA) > > > 2) SVQ virtqueue and buffers > > > > > > And another gtree to track the GPA to IOVA. > > > > > > The SVQ code could use either > > > > > > 1) one linear mappings that contains both SVQ virtqueue and buffers > > > > > > or > > > > > > 2) dynamic IOVA allocation/deallocation helpers > > > > > > So we don't actually need the third gtree for SVQ HVA -> SVQ IOVA? > > > > > > > That's possible, but that scatters the IOVA handling code instead of > > keeping it self-contained in VhostIOVATree. > > To me, the IOVA range/allocation is orthogonal to how IOVA is used. > > An example is the iova allocator in the kernel. > > Note that there's an even simpler IOVA "allocator" in NVME passthrough > code, not sure it is useful here though (haven't had a deep look at > that). >
I don't know enough about them to have an opinion. I keep seeing the drawback of needing to synchronize both allocation & adding in all the places we want to modify the IOVATree. At this moment, these are the vhost-vdpa memory listener, the SVQ vring creation and removal, and net CVQ buffers. But it may be more in the future. What are the advantages of keeping these separated that justifies needing to synchronize in all these places, compared with keeping them synchronized in VhostIOVATree? Thanks!
