On 22/07/2024 15:09, Joao Martins wrote:
> On 22/07/2024 09:58, Joao Martins wrote:
>> On 22/07/2024 07:05, Duan, Zhenzhong wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Joao Martins <joao.m.mart...@oracle.com>
>>>> Subject: [PATCH v5 09/13] vfio/iommufd: Probe and request hwpt dirty
>>>> tracking capability
>>>>
>>>> In preparation to using the dirty tracking UAPI, probe whether the IOMMU
>>>> supports dirty tracking. This is done via the data stored in
>>>> hiod::caps::hw_caps initialized from GET_HW_INFO.
>>>>
>>>> Qemu doesn't know if VF dirty tracking is supported when allocating
>>>> hardware pagetable in iommufd_cdev_autodomains_get(). This is because
>>>> VFIODevice migration state hasn't been initialized *yet* hence it can't
>>>> pick
>>>> between VF dirty tracking vs IOMMU dirty tracking. So, if IOMMU supports
>>>> dirty tracking it always creates HWPTs with
>>>> IOMMU_HWPT_ALLOC_DIRTY_TRACKING
>>>> even if later on VFIOMigration decides to use VF dirty tracking instead.
>>>
>>> I thought there is no overhead for HWPT with
>>> IOMMU_HWPT_ALLOC_DIRTY_TRACKING vs. HWPT without
>>> IOMMU_HWPT_ALLOC_DIRTY_TRACKING if we don't enable dirty tracking. Right?
>>>
>>
>> Correct.
>>
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Joao Martins <joao.m.mart...@oracle.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> include/hw/vfio/vfio-common.h | 1 +
>>>> hw/vfio/iommufd.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
>>>> 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/hw/vfio/vfio-common.h b/include/hw/vfio/vfio-
>>>> common.h
>>>> index 4e44b26d3c45..7e530c7869dc 100644
>>>> --- a/include/hw/vfio/vfio-common.h
>>>> +++ b/include/hw/vfio/vfio-common.h
>>>> @@ -97,6 +97,7 @@ typedef struct IOMMUFDBackend IOMMUFDBackend;
>>>>
>>>> typedef struct VFIOIOASHwpt {
>>>> uint32_t hwpt_id;
>>>> + uint32_t hwpt_flags;
>>>> QLIST_HEAD(, VFIODevice) device_list;
>>>> QLIST_ENTRY(VFIOIOASHwpt) next;
>>>> } VFIOIOASHwpt;
>>>> diff --git a/hw/vfio/iommufd.c b/hw/vfio/iommufd.c
>>>> index bb44d948c735..2e5c207bbca0 100644
>>>> --- a/hw/vfio/iommufd.c
>>>> +++ b/hw/vfio/iommufd.c
>>>> @@ -110,6 +110,11 @@ static void
>>>> iommufd_cdev_unbind_and_disconnect(VFIODevice *vbasedev)
>>>> iommufd_backend_disconnect(vbasedev->iommufd);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +static bool iommufd_hwpt_dirty_tracking(VFIOIOASHwpt *hwpt)
>>>> +{
>>>> + return hwpt && hwpt->hwpt_flags &
>>>> IOMMU_HWPT_ALLOC_DIRTY_TRACKING;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> static int iommufd_cdev_getfd(const char *sysfs_path, Error **errp)
>>>> {
>>>> ERRP_GUARD();
>>>> @@ -246,6 +251,17 @@ static bool
>>>> iommufd_cdev_autodomains_get(VFIODevice *vbasedev,
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * This is quite early and VFIO Migration state isn't yet fully
>>>> + * initialized, thus rely only on IOMMU hardware capabilities as to
>>>> + * whether IOMMU dirty tracking is going to be requested. Later
>>>> + * vfio_migration_realize() may decide to use VF dirty tracking
>>>> + * instead.
>>>> + */
>>>> + if (vbasedev->hiod->caps.hw_caps &
>>>> IOMMU_HW_CAP_DIRTY_TRACKING) {
>>>
>>> Looks there is still reference to hw_caps, then would suggest to bring back
>>> the NEW CAP.
>>>
>> Ah, but below helper is checking for GET_HW_INFO stuff, and not hwpt flags
>> given that we haven't allocated a hwpt yet.
>>
>> While I could place this check into a helper it would only have an user. I
>> will
>> need below helper iommufd_hwpt_dirty_tracking() in another patch, so this is
>> a
>> bit of a one off check only (unless we want a new helper for cosmetic
>> purposes)
>>
>>>> + flags = IOMMU_HWPT_ALLOC_DIRTY_TRACKING;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> if (!iommufd_backend_alloc_hwpt(iommufd, vbasedev->devid,
>>>> container->ioas_id, flags,
>>>> IOMMU_HWPT_DATA_NONE, 0, NULL,
>>>> @@ -255,6 +271,7 @@ static bool
>>>> iommufd_cdev_autodomains_get(VFIODevice *vbasedev,
>>>>
>>>> hwpt = g_malloc0(sizeof(*hwpt));
>>>> hwpt->hwpt_id = hwpt_id;
>>>> + hwpt->hwpt_flags = flags;
>>>> QLIST_INIT(&hwpt->device_list);
>>>>
>>>> ret = iommufd_cdev_attach_ioas_hwpt(vbasedev, hwpt->hwpt_id, errp);
>>>> @@ -267,6 +284,8 @@ static bool
>>>> iommufd_cdev_autodomains_get(VFIODevice *vbasedev,
>>>> vbasedev->hwpt = hwpt;
>>>> QLIST_INSERT_HEAD(&hwpt->device_list, vbasedev, hwpt_next);
>>>> QLIST_INSERT_HEAD(&container->hwpt_list, hwpt, next);
>>>> + container->bcontainer.dirty_pages_supported |=
>>>> + iommufd_hwpt_dirty_tracking(hwpt);
>>>
>>> If there is at least one hwpt without dirty tracking, shouldn't we make
>>> bcontainer.dirty_pages_supported false?
>>>
>
> Missed this comment. We could set to false but the generic container
> abstraction
> is utilizing this to let the ioctls() of the individual backend to go through
> to
> the defined callback, and that's why I set to true.
>
Let me rephrase, I meant: "(...) utilizing this to let the individual backend
container callbacks of dirty tracking to go through, and that's why I set to
true."
> And that is really the only effect of this patch. By the time we reach to
> patch
> 12 (which is what really enables live migration with IOMMU automatically), the
> IOMMUFD dirty tracking is only called 1) when not one of the VF doesn't
> support
> device dirty tracking [only if you're using IOMMUFD backend], and finally 2)
> that no VF/mdev has added the migration blocker which essentially looks at the
> HWPT flags (as opposed to the container attribute).
>
> Joao
>
