On Wed, 2016-01-27 at 13:43 +0800, Jike Song wrote: > On 01/27/2016 11:07 AM, Alex Williamson wrote: > > On Wed, 2016-01-27 at 09:47 +0800, Jike Song wrote: > > > On 01/27/2016 06:56 AM, Alex Williamson wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2016-01-26 at 22:39 +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote: > > > > > > From: Alex Williamson [mailto:alex.william...@redhat.com] > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 6:27 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2016-01-26 at 22:15 +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote: > > > > > > > > From: Alex Williamson [mailto:alex.william...@redhat.com] > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 6:08 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Today KVMGT (not using VFIO yet) registers I/O emulation > > > > > > > > > > > callbacks to > > > > > > > > > > > KVM, so VM MMIO access will be forwarded to KVMGT > > > > > > > > > > > directly for > > > > > > > > > > > emulation in kernel. If we reuse above R/W flags, the > > > > > > > > > > > whole emulation > > > > > > > > > > > path would be unnecessarily long with obvious performance > > > > > > > > > > > impact. We > > > > > > > > > > > either need a new flag here to indicate in-kernel > > > > > > > > > > > emulation (bias from > > > > > > > > > > > passthrough support), or just hide the region > > > > > > > > > > > alternatively (let KVMGT > > > > > > > > > > > to handle I/O emulation itself like today). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That sounds like a future optimization TBH. There's very > > > > > > > > > > strict > > > > > > > > > > layering between vfio and kvm. Physical device assignment > > > > > > > > > > could make > > > > > > > > > > use of it as well, avoiding a round trip through userspace > > > > > > > > > > when an > > > > > > > > > > ioread/write would do. Userspace also needs to orchestrate > > > > > > > > > > those kinds > > > > > > > > > > of accelerators, there might be cases where userspace wants > > > > > > > > > > to see those > > > > > > > > > > transactions for debugging or manipulating the device. We > > > > > > > > > > can't simply > > > > > > > > > > take shortcuts to provide such direct access. Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But we have to balance such debugging flexibility and > > > > > > > > > acceptable performance. > > > > > > > > > To me the latter one is more important otherwise there'd be > > > > > > > > > no real usage > > > > > > > > > around this technique, while for debugging there are other > > > > > > > > > alternative (e.g. > > > > > > > > > ftrace) Consider some extreme case with 100k traps/second and > > > > > > > > > then see > > > > > > > > > how much impact a 2-3x longer emulation path can bring... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you jumping to the conclusion that it cannot be done with > > > > > > > > proper > > > > > > > > layering in place? Performance is important, but it's not an > > > > > > > > excuse to > > > > > > > > abandon designing interfaces between independent components. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Two are not controversial. My point is to remove unnecessary long > > > > > > > trip > > > > > > > as possible. After another thought, yes we can reuse existing > > > > > > > read/write > > > > > > > flags: > > > > > > > - KVMGT will expose a private control variable whether in-kernel > > > > > > > delivery is required; > > > > > > > > > > > > But in-kernel delivery is never *required*. Wouldn't userspace > > > > > > want to > > > > > > deliver in-kernel any time it possibly could? > > > > > > > > > > > > > - when the variable is true, KVMGT will register in-kernel MMIO > > > > > > > emulation callbacks then VM MMIO request will be delivered to > > > > > > > KVMGT > > > > > > > directly; > > > > > > > - when the variable is false, KVMGT will not register anything. > > > > > > > VM MMIO request will then be delivered to Qemu and then > > > > > > > ioread/write > > > > > > > will be used to finally reach KVMGT emulation logic; > > > > > > > > > > > > No, that means the interface is entirely dependent on a backdoor > > > > > > through > > > > > > KVM. Why can't userspace (QEMU) do something like register an MMIO > > > > > > region with KVM handled via a provided file descriptor and offset, > > > > > > couldn't KVM then call the file ops without a kernel exit? Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you elaborate this thought? If it can achieve the purpose w/o > > > > > a kernel exit definitely we can adapt to it. :-) > > > > > > > > I only thought of it when replying to the last email and have been doing > > > > some research, but we already do quite a bit of synchronization through > > > > file descriptors. The kvm-vfio pseudo device uses a group file > > > > descriptor to ensure a user has access to a group, allowing some degree > > > > of interaction between modules. Eventfds and irqfds already make use of > > > > f_ops on file descriptors to poke data. So, if KVM had information that > > > > an MMIO region was backed by a file descriptor for which it already has > > > > a reference via fdget() (and verified access rights and whatnot), then > > > > it ought to be a simple matter to get to f_ops->read/write knowing the > > > > base offset of that MMIO region. Perhaps it could even simply use > > > > __vfs_read/write(). Then we've got a proper reference to the file > > > > descriptor for ownership purposes and we've transparently jumped across > > > > modules without any implicit knowledge of the other end. Could it work? > > > > > > This is OK for KVMGT, from fops to vgpu device-model would always be > > > simple. > > > The only question is, how is KVM hypervisor supposed to get the fd on > > > VM-exitings? > > > > Hi Jike, > > > > Sorry, I don't understand "on VM-exiting". KVM would hold a reference > > to the fd via fdget(), so the vfio device wouldn't be closed until the > > VM exits and KVM releases that reference. > > > > Sorry for my bad English, I meant VMEXIT, from non-root to kvm hypervisor. > > > > copy-and-paste the current implementation of vcpu_mmio_write(), seems > > > nothing but GPA and len are provided: > > > > I presume that an MMIO region is already registered with a GPA and > > length, the additional information necessary would be a file descriptor > > and offset into the file descriptor for the base of the MMIO space. > > > > > static int vcpu_mmio_write(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gpa_t addr, int len, > > > const void *v) > > > { > > > int handled = 0; > > > int n; > > > > > > do { > > > n = min(len, 8); > > > if (!(vcpu->arch.apic && > > > !kvm_iodevice_write(vcpu, &vcpu->arch.apic->dev, > > > addr, n, v)) > > > && kvm_io_bus_write(vcpu, KVM_MMIO_BUS, addr, n, v)) > > > break; > > > handled += n; > > > addr += n; > > > len -= n; > > > v += n; > > > } while (len); > > > > > > return handled; > > > } > > > > > > If we back a GPA range with a fd, this will also be a 'backdoor'? > > > > KVM would simply be able to service the MMIO access using the provided > > fd and offset. It's not a back door because we will have created an API > > for KVM to have a file descriptor and offset registered (by userspace) > > to handle the access. Also, KVM does not know the file descriptor is > > handled by a VFIO device and VFIO doesn't know the read/write accesses > > is initiated by KVM. Seems like the question is whether we can fit > > something like that into the existing KVM MMIO bus/device handlers > > in-kernel. Thanks, > > > > Had a look at eventfd, I would say yes, technically we are able to > achieve the goal: introduce a fd, with fop->{read|write} defined in KVM, > call into vgpu device-model, also an iodev registered for a MMIO GPA > range to invoke the fop->{read|write}. I just didn't understand why > userspace can't register an iodev via API directly.
Please elaborate on how it would work via iodev. > Besides, this doesn't necessarily require another thread, right? > I guess it can be within the VCPU thread? I would think so too, the vcpu is blocked on the MMIO access, we should be able to service it in that context. I hope. > And this brought another question: except the vfio bus drvier and > iommu backend (and the page_track ulitiy used for guest memory > write-protection), > is it KVMGT allowed to call into kvm.ko (or modify)? Though we are > becoming less and less willing to do that with VFIO, it's still better > to know that before going wrong. kvm and vfio are separate modules, for the most part, they know nothing about each other and have no hard dependencies between them. We do have various accelerations we can use to avoid paths through userspace, but these are all via APIs that are agnostic of the party on the other end. For example, vfio signals interrups through eventfds and has no concept of whether that eventfd terminates in userspace or into an irqfd in KVM. vfio supports direct access to device MMIO regions via mmaps, but vfio has no idea if that mmap gets directly mapped into a VM address space. Even with posted interrupts, we've introduced an irq bypass manager allowing interrupt producers and consumers to register independently to form a connection without directly knowing anything about the other module. That sort or proper software layering needs to continue. It would be wrong for a vfio bus driver to assume KVM is the user and directly call into KVM interfaces. Thanks, Alex
