On 01/29/2016 03:20 PM, Jike Song wrote:
> This discussion becomes a little difficult for a newbie like me :(
>
> On 01/28/2016 11:23 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
>> On Thu, 2016-01-28 at 14:00 +0800, Jike Song wrote:
>>> On 01/28/2016 12:19 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2016-01-27 at 13:43 +0800, Jike Song wrote:
>>> {snip}
>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> QEMU forwards BAR0 write to the bus driver, in the bus driver, if
>>> found that MEM bit is enabled, register an iodev to KVM: with an
>>> ops:
>>>
>>> const struct kvm_io_device_ops trap_mmio_ops = {
>>> .read = kvmgt_guest_mmio_read,
>>> .write = kvmgt_guest_mmio_write,
>>> };
>>>
>>> I may not be able to illustrated it clearly with descriptions but this
>>> should not be a problem, thanks to your explanation, I can understand
>>> and adopt it for KVMGT.
>>
>> You're still crossing modules with direct callbacks, right? What's the
>> advantage versus using the file descriptor + offset approach which could
>> offer the same performance and improve KVM overall by creating a new
>> option for generically handling MMIO?
>>
>
> Yes, the method I gave above is the current way: calling kvm_io_device_ops
> from KVM hypervisor, and then going to vgpu device-model directly.
>
> From KVMGT's side this is almost the same as what you suggested, I don't
> think now we have a problem here. I will adopt your suggestion.
>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for confirmation.
>>>
>>>>> 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,
>>>>
>>>
>>> I understand and agree with your point, it's bad if the bus driver
>>> assume KVM is the user and/or call into KVM interfaces.
>>>
>>> However, the vgpu device-model, in intel case also a part of i915 driver,
>>> will always need to call some hypervisor-specific interfaces.
>>
>> No, think differently.
>>
>>> For example, when a guest gfx driver submit GPU commands, the device-model
>>> may want to scan it for security or whatever-else purpose:
>>>
>>> - get a GPA (from GPU page tables)
>>> - want to read 16 bytes from that GPA
>>> - call hypervisor-specific read_gpa() method
>>> - for Xen, the GPA belongs to a foreign domain, it must find
>>> a way to map & read it - beyond our scope here;
>>> - for KVM, the GPA can converted to HVA, copy_from_user (if
>>> called from vcpu thread) or access_remote_vm (if called from
>>> other threads);
>>>
>>> Please note that this is not from the vfio bus driver, but from the vgpu
>>> device-model; also this is not DMA addr from GPU talbes, but real GPA.
>>
>> This is exactly why we're proposing that the vfio IOMMU interface be
>> used as a database of guest translations.
>> The type1 IOMMU model in QEMU
>> maps all of guest memory through the IOMMU, in the vGPU model type1 is
>> simply collecting these and they map GPA to process virtual memory.
>
> GPA to HVA mappings are maintained in KVM/QEMU, via memslots.
> Do you mean making type1 to duplicate the GPA <-> HVA/HPA translations from
> KVM? Even technically this could be done, how to synchronize it with KVM
> hypervisor? e.g. What is expected if guest hot-add a memslot?
>
> What's more, GPA is totally a virtualization term. When VFIO is used for
> device assignment, it uses GPA as IOVA, maps it to HPA, that's true.
> But for KVMGT, since vGPU doesn't have its own DMA requester ID, VFIO
> won't call IOMMU-API, but DMA-API instead. GPAs from different guests
> may be identical, while IGD can only have 1 single IOMMU domain ...
>
>
>> When the GPU driver wants to get a GPA, it does so from this database.
>> If it wants to read from it, it could get the mm and read from the
>> virtual memory or pin the page for a GPA to HPA translation and read
>> from the HPA. There is no reason to poke directly through to the
>> hypervisor here. Let's design what you need into the vgpu version of
>> the type1 IOMMU instead. Thanks,
>
> For KVM, to access a GPA, having it translated to HVA is enough.
>
> IIUC this may be the only remaining problem between us: where should
> a GPA be translated to HVA, KVM or VFIO?
>
Unfortunately it's not the only one. Another example is, device-model
may want to write-protect a gfn (RAM). In case that this request goes
to VFIO .. how it is supposed to reach KVM MMU?
>
--
Thanks,
Jike
