On Fri, 2 Dec 2016 13:59:25 +0800 Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 04:21:38AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote: > > > From: Peter Xu > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 5:24 PM > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 05:51:50PM +0200, Aviv B.D wrote: > > > > * intel_iommu's replay op is not implemented yet (May come in different > > > > patch > > > > set). > > > > The replay function is required for hotplug vfio device and to move > > > > devices > > > > between existing domains. > > > > > > I am thinking about this replay thing recently and now I start to > > > doubt whether the whole vt-d vIOMMU framework suites this... > > > > > > Generally speaking, current work is throwing away the IOMMU "domain" > > > layer here. We maintain the mapping only per device, and we don't care > > > too much about which domain it belongs. This seems problematic. > > > > > > A simplest wrong case for this is (let's assume cache-mode is > > > enabled): if we have two assigned devices A and B, both belong to the > > > same domain 1. Meanwhile, in domain 1 assume we have one mapping which > > > is the first page (iova range 0-0xfff). Then, if guest wants to > > > invalidate the page, it'll notify VT-d vIOMMU with an invalidation > > > message. If we do this invalidation per-device, we'll need to UNMAP > > > the region twice - once for A, once for B (if we have more devices, we > > > will unmap more times), and we can never know we have done duplicated > > > work since we don't keep domain info, so we don't know they are using > > > the same address space. The first unmap will work, and then we'll > > > possibly get some errors on the rest of dma unmap failures. > > > > Tianyu and I discussed there is a bigger problem: today VFIO assumes > > only one address space per container, which is fine w/o vIOMMU (all devices > > in > > same container share same GPA->HPA translation). However it's not the case > > when vIOMMU is enabled, because guest Linux implements per-device > > IOVA space. If a VFIO container includes multiple devices, it means > > multiple address spaces required per container... > > IIUC the vfio container is created in: > > vfio_realize > vfio_get_group > vfio_connect_container > > Along the way (for vfio_get_group()), we have: > > group = vfio_get_group(groupid, pci_device_iommu_address_space(pdev), errp); > > Here the address space is per device. If without vIOMMU, they will be > pointed to the same system address space. However if with vIOMMU, > that address space will be per-device, no? Correct, with VT-d present, there will be a separate AddressSpace per device, so each device will be placed into separate containers. This is currently the only way to provide the flexibility that those separate devices can be attached to different domains in the guest. It also automatically faults on when devices share an iommu group on the host but the guest attempts to use separate AddressSpaces. Trouble comes when the guest is booted with iommu=pt as each container will need to map the full guest memory, yet each container is accounted separately for locked memory. libvirt doesn't account for $NUM_HOSTDEVS x $VM_MEM_SIZE for locked memory. Ideally we could be more flexible with dynamic containers, but it's not currently an option to move a group from one container to another w/o first closing all the devices within the group. Thanks, Alex
