Thanks Anatoly & David.
The main patch provided by Anatoly is not compatible with DPDK 19.02.
So I had to make following patch and verified it to be working with DPDK
19.02 & SPDK 19.07 combination.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_eal_memconfig.h
b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_eal_memconfig.h
index 84aabe3..49934f5 100644
--- a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_eal_memconfig.h
+++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_eal_memconfig.h
@@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ struct rte_memseg_list {
volatile uint32_t version; /**< version number for multiprocess sync. */
size_t len; /**< Length of memory area covered by this memseg list. */
unsigned int external; /**< 1 if this list points to external memory */
+ unsigned int heap; /**< 1 if this list points to a heap */
struct rte_fbarray memseg_arr;
};
diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_malloc.c
b/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_malloc.c
index b39de3c..4d31bf7 100644
--- a/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_malloc.c
+++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_malloc.c
@@ -368,6 +368,7 @@ void rte_free(void *addr)
rte_spinlock_lock(&heap->lock);
ret = malloc_heap_add_external_memory(heap, msl);
+ msl->heap = 1; /* mark it as heap segment */
rte_spinlock_unlock(&heap->lock);
unlock:
diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c
b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c
index 1b96b57..33dd923 100644
--- a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c
+++ b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c
@@ -836,6 +836,7 @@ void numa_error(char *where)
msl->page_sz = page_sz;
msl->socket_id = socket_id;
msl->base_va = NULL;
+ msl->heap = 1; /* mark it as a heap segment */
RTE_LOG(DEBUG, EAL, "Memseg list allocated: 0x%zxkB at socket %i\n",
(size_t)page_sz >> 10, socket_id);
@@ -1410,6 +1411,7 @@ void numa_error(char *where)
msl->page_sz = page_sz;
msl->socket_id = 0;
msl->len = internal_config.memory;
+ msl->heap = 1;
/* we're in single-file segments mode, so only the segment list
* fd needs to be set up.
@@ -1682,6 +1684,7 @@ void numa_error(char *where)
mem_sz = msl->len;
munmap(msl->base_va, mem_sz);
msl->base_va = NULL;
+ msl->heap = 0;
/* destroy backing fbarray */
rte_fbarray_destroy(&msl->memseg_arr);
diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_vfio.c
b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_vfio.c
index 61b54f9..3bb3e6b 100644
--- a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_vfio.c
+++ b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_vfio.c
@@ -1238,7 +1238,16 @@ static int vfio_dma_mem_map(struct vfio_config
*vfio_cfg, uint64_t vaddr,
{
int *vfio_container_fd = arg;
- if (msl->external & !internal_config.iso_cmem)
+ /* skip external memory that isn't a heap */
+ if (msl->external && !msl->heap)
+ return 0;
+
+ /* skip any segments with invalid IOVA addresses */
+ if (ms->iova == RTE_BAD_IOVA)
+ return 0;
+
+ /* if IOVA mode is VA, we've already mapped the internal segments */
+ if (!msl->external && rte_eal_iova_mode() == RTE_IOVA_VA)
return 0;
return vfio_type1_dma_mem_map(*vfio_container_fd, ms->addr_64, ms->iova,
@@ -1362,9 +1371,19 @@ static int vfio_dma_mem_map(struct vfio_config
*vfio_cfg, uint64_t vaddr,
{
int *vfio_container_fd = arg;
- if (msl->external)
+ /* skip external memory that isn't a heap */
+ if (msl->external && !msl->heap)
return 0;
+ /* skip any segments with invalid IOVA addresses */
+ if (ms->iova == RTE_BAD_IOVA)
+ return 0;
+
+#if 0
+ if (ms->addr_64 == param->addr_64)
+ return 0;
+#endif
+
return vfio_spapr_dma_do_map(*vfio_container_fd, ms->addr_64, ms->iova,
ms->len, 1);
}
@@ -1381,6 +1400,12 @@ struct spapr_walk_param {
uint64_t max = ms->iova + ms->len;
if (msl->external)
+ /* skip external memory that isn't a heap */
+ if (msl->external && !msl->heap)
+ return 0;
+
+ /* skip any segments with invalid IOVA addresses */
+ if (ms->iova == RTE_BAD_IOVA)
return 0;
if (max > param->window_size) {
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regards,
Rajesh
On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 7:28 PM David Marchand <david.march...@redhat.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 6:15 PM Burakov, Anatoly
> <anatoly.bura...@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 05-Nov-19 3:15 PM, Anatoly Burakov wrote:
> > > Currently, externally created heaps are supposed to be automatically
> > > mapped for VFIO DMA by EAL, however they only do so if, at the time of
> > > heap creation, VFIO is initialized and has at least one device
> > > available. If no devices are available at the time of heap creation (or
> > > if devices were available, but were since hot-unplugged, thus dropping
> > > all VFIO container mappings), then VFIO mapping code would have skipped
> > > over externally allocated heaps.
> > >
> > > The fix is two-fold. First, we allow externally allocated memory
> > > segments to be marked as "heap" segments. This allows us to distinguish
> > > between external memory segments that were created via heap API, from
> > > those that were created via rte_extmem_register() API.
> > >
> > > Then, we fix the VFIO code to only skip non-heap external segments.
> > > Also, since external heaps are not guaranteed to have valid IOVA
> > > addresses, we will skip those which have invalid IOVA addresses as
> well.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 0f526d674f8e ("malloc: separate creating memseg list and malloc
> heap")
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.bura...@intel.com>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > Notes:
> > > This cannot be backported to older releases as it breaks the
> > > API and ABI. A separate fix is in the works for stable.
> > >
> >
> > Alternative, non-breaking implementation available (which will be slower
> > due to O(N) memseg list heaps lookups):
> >
> > http://patches.dpdk.org/patch/62486/
> >
> > I'm fine with either option being merged.
> >
> > The more perfect solution would've been to rename "msl->external" into
> > "msl->flags" and have various flags for memseg lists, but it's too late
> > to break the API now.
>
> Either way is fine for me (between the 18.11 and the master patches you
> sent).
> Breaking the ABI is acceptable, but I agree the API is another story.
>
> If the code seems better to you with the additional heap flag, let's go
> for it.
>
> I would still like to hear from Rajesh though, since he seems to be
> the first to hit this issue.
>
>
> --
> David Marchand
>
>
--
Regards,
Rajesh
