> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>
> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 4:57 PM
> To: Vamsi Krishna Attunuru <vattun...@marvell.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: olivier.m...@6wind.com; arybche...@solarflare.com; Kiran Kumar
> Kokkilagadda <kirankum...@marvell.com>
> Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v6 4/4] kernel/linux/kni: add IOVA support in
> kni
> module
>
> On 7/12/2019 5:29 PM, Vamsi Krishna Attunuru wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>
> >> Sent: Friday, July 12, 2019 4:40 PM
> >> To: Vamsi Krishna Attunuru <vattun...@marvell.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> >> Cc: olivier.m...@6wind.com; arybche...@solarflare.com; Kiran Kumar
> >> Kokkilagadda <kirankum...@marvell.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v6 4/4] kernel/linux/kni: add IOVA
> >> support in kni module
> >>
> >> On 7/12/2019 11:38 AM, Vamsi Krishna Attunuru wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> --
> >>> ----------
> >>> *From:* Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>
> >>> *Sent:* Thursday, July 11, 2019 10:00 PM
> >>> *To:* Vamsi Krishna Attunuru; dev@dpdk.org
> >>> *Cc:* olivier.m...@6wind.com; arybche...@solarflare.com; Kiran Kumar
> >>> Kokkilagadda
> >>> *Subject:* [EXT] Re: [PATCH v6 4/4] kernel/linux/kni: add IOVA
> >>> support in kni module
> >>>
> >>> External Email
> >>>
> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> -- On 6/25/2019 4:57 AM, vattun...@marvell.com wrote:
> >>>> From: Kiran Kumar K <kirankum...@marvell.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> Patch adds support for kernel module to work in IOVA = VA mode, the
> >>>> idea is to get physical address from iova address using
> >>>> iommu_iova_to_phys API and later use phys_to_virt API to convert
> >>>> the physical address to kernel virtual address.
> >>>>
> >>>> When compared with IOVA = PA mode, there is no performance drop
> >> with
> >>>> this approach.
> >>>>
> >>>> This approach does not work with the kernel versions less than
> >>>> 4.4.0 because of API compatibility issues.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Kiran Kumar K <kirankum...@marvell.com>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Vamsi Attunuru <vattun...@marvell.com>
> >>>
> >>> <...>
> >>>
> >>>> @@ -351,15 +354,56 @@ kni_ioctl_create(struct net *net, uint32_t
> >>>> ioctl_num,
> >>>> strncpy(kni->name, dev_info.name, RTE_KNI_NAMESIZE);
> >>>>
> >>>> /* Translate user space info into kernel space info */
> >>>> - kni->tx_q = phys_to_virt(dev_info.tx_phys);
> >>>> - kni->rx_q = phys_to_virt(dev_info.rx_phys);
> >>>> - kni->alloc_q = phys_to_virt(dev_info.alloc_phys);
> >>>> - kni->free_q = phys_to_virt(dev_info.free_phys);
> >>>> -
> >>>> - kni->req_q = phys_to_virt(dev_info.req_phys);
> >>>> - kni->resp_q = phys_to_virt(dev_info.resp_phys);
> >>>> - kni->sync_va = dev_info.sync_va;
> >>>> - kni->sync_kva = phys_to_virt(dev_info.sync_phys);
> >>>> + if (dev_info.iova_mode) {
> >>>> +#if KERNEL_VERSION(4, 4, 0) > LINUX_VERSION_CODE
> >>>
> >>> We have "kni/compat.h" to put the version checks, please use
> >>> abstracted feature checks only in the code.
> >>> From experience this goes ugly quickly with the addition to distro
> >>> kernels and their specific versioning, so better to hide these all
> >>> from the
> >> source code.
> >>>
> >>> And this version requirement needs to be documented in kni doc.
> >>>
> >>> ack
> >>>
> >>>> + (void)pci;
> >>>> + pr_err("Kernel version is not supported\n");
> >>>
> >>> Can you please include 'iova_mode' condition into the message log,
> >>> because this kernel version is supported if user wants to use via
> >> 'iova_mode == 0' condition.
> >>>
> >>> ack
> >>>
> >>>> + return -EINVAL;
> >>>> +#else
> >>>> + pci = pci_get_device(dev_info.vendor_id,
> >>>> + dev_info.device_id, NULL);
> >>>> + while (pci) {
> >>>> + if ((pci->bus->number == dev_info.bus) &&
> >>>> + (PCI_SLOT(pci->devfn) == dev_info.devid)
> >>>> +&&
> >>>> + (PCI_FUNC(pci->devfn) ==
> >>>> +dev_info.function)) {
> >>>> + domain =
> >>>> +iommu_get_domain_for_dev(&pci->dev);
> >>>> + break;
> >>>> + }
> >>>> + pci = pci_get_device(dev_info.vendor_id,
> >>>> + dev_info.device_id,
> >>>> +pci);
> >>>> + }
> >>>
> >>> What if 'pci' is NULL here?
> >>> In kni it is not required to provide a device at all.
> >>>
> >>> Ack, will add a NULL check.
> >>> other point is not clear to me, device info is absolutely required
> >>> at least for IOVA=VA mode, since it requires to procure iommu
> >>> domain
> >> details.
> >>
> >> "device info is absolutely required" *only* for IOVA=VA mode, so user
> >> may skip to provide it.
> >>
> >>> Any thoughts or ways to address this without device.?
> >>
> >> Return error if 'iova_mode' requested but device info not?
> >>
> >> But you didn't replied to passing 'iova_mode' from application, I
> >> would like hear what you are thinking about it..
> >
> > One query regarding defining config for kni Where this config comes,
> > eal or kni sample app or KNI public API?
>
> Config comes from the application, but the KNI public API has to validate if
> the
> request can be justified and return error if can't be.
> I think the KNI API check is required to be able to remove the check in the
> eal.
>
If eal is enabled in iova=VA mode, kni application can operate in that VA mode
right.
I did not understand the application's use or requirement to configure/enforce
PA mode
when eal is enabled with iova=VA mode.
How about using rte_eal_iova_mode() == VA check in kni application and kni lib
to pass device
info(pci) and also for pool creation(with no page split flag), meaning all
these patch changes will go
under that check.
Current eal check(is kni module inserted when eal mode is VA) also can be
addressed by checking
linux version, where if rte_eal_iova_mode() is VA but kernel version < 4.4.0,
PA mode can be enforced and all will be configured in PA mode.
With above approach, I think PA mode is still intact and there would not be any
issues.
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> <...>
> >>>
> >>>> @@ -186,7 +202,10 @@ kni_fifo_trans_pa2va(struct kni_dev *kni,
> >>>> return;
> >>>>
> >>>> for (i = 0; i < num_rx; i++) {
> >>>> - kva = pa2kva(kni->pa[i]);
> >>>> + if (likely(kni->iova_mode == 1))
> >>>> + kva = iova2kva(kni, kni->pa[i]);
> >>>> + else
> >>>> + kva = pa2kva(kni->pa[i]);
> >>>
> >>> To reduce the churn, what about updating the 'pa2kva()' and put the
> >>> "(kni->iova_mode == 1)" check there? Does it help? (not only
> >>> 'pa2kva()' but its friends also, and if it makes more sense agree to
> >>> rename the functions)
> >>>
> >>> No, in VA mode, kni->pa[i] points to iova address, pa2kva() of iova
> >>> address might crash, hence the if..else check is added.
> >>
> >> I understand that part.
> >> What I am suggestion is something like this:
> >>
> >> kva = common_function(kni, kni->pa[i]);
> >>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> common_function() {
> >> if (unlikely(kni->iova_mode == 1))
> >> return iova2kva(kni, kni->pa[i]);
> >> return pa2kva(kni->pa[i]);
> >> }
> >>
> >> To hide the check in the function and make code more readable
> >>
> >>>
> >>> And btw, why 'likely' case is "kni->iova_mode == 1"?
> >>>
> >>> no specific case other than branch predict, will remove this if it's
> >>> really harmful to PA mode.
> >
