> -----Original Message-----
> From: Burakov, Anatoly <anatoly.bura...@intel.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 7, 2021 10:34 PM
> To: Ding, Xuan <xuan.d...@intel.com>; Maxime Coquelin
> <maxime.coque...@redhat.com>; Xia, Chenbo <chenbo....@intel.com>;
> Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>; David Marchand
> <david.march...@redhat.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Hu, Jiayu <jiayu...@intel.com>; Pai G, Sunil
> <sunil.pa...@intel.com>; Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richard...@intel.com>;
> Van Haaren, Harry <harry.van.haa...@intel.com>; Liu, Yong
> <yong....@intel.com>; Ma, WenwuX <wenwux...@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/2] vhost: enable IOMMU for async vhost
>
> On 07-Jul-21 1:54 PM, Ding, Xuan wrote:
> > Hi Anatoly,
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Burakov, Anatoly <anatoly.bura...@intel.com>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, July 7, 2021 8:18 PM
> >> To: Ding, Xuan <xuan.d...@intel.com>; Maxime Coquelin
> >> <maxime.coque...@redhat.com>; Xia, Chenbo <chenbo....@intel.com>;
> >> Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>; David Marchand
> >> <david.march...@redhat.com>
> >> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Hu, Jiayu <jiayu...@intel.com>; Pai G, Sunil
> >> <sunil.pa...@intel.com>; Richardson, Bruce
> <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; Van
> >> Haaren, Harry <harry.van.haa...@intel.com>; Liu, Yong
> <yong....@intel.com>;
> >> Ma, WenwuX <wenwux...@intel.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/2] vhost: enable IOMMU for async
> vhost
> >>
> >> On 07-Jul-21 7:25 AM, Ding, Xuan wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coque...@redhat.com>
> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 6, 2021 5:32 PM
> >>>> To: Burakov, Anatoly <anatoly.bura...@intel.com>; Ding, Xuan
> >>>> <xuan.d...@intel.com>; Xia, Chenbo <chenbo....@intel.com>; Thomas
> >>>> Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>; David Marchand
> >>>> <david.march...@redhat.com>
> >>>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Hu, Jiayu <jiayu...@intel.com>; Pai G, Sunil
> >>>> <sunil.pa...@intel.com>; Richardson, Bruce
> <bruce.richard...@intel.com>;
> >> Van
> >>>> Haaren, Harry <harry.van.haa...@intel.com>; Liu, Yong
> >> <yong....@intel.com>;
> >>>> Ma, WenwuX <wenwux...@intel.com>
> >>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/2] vhost: enable IOMMU for async
> vhost
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 7/6/21 11:16 AM, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
> >>>>> On 06-Jul-21 9:31 AM, Ding, Xuan wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi Maxime,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>> From: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coque...@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 5, 2021 8:46 PM
> >>>>>>> To: Burakov, Anatoly <anatoly.bura...@intel.com>; Ding, Xuan
> >>>>>>> <xuan.d...@intel.com>; Xia, Chenbo <chenbo....@intel.com>;
> Thomas
> >>>>>>> Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>; David Marchand
> >>>>>>> <david.march...@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Hu, Jiayu <jiayu...@intel.com>; Pai G, Sunil
> >>>>>>> <sunil.pa...@intel.com>; Richardson, Bruce
> >> <bruce.richard...@intel.com>;
> >>>>>>> Van Haaren, Harry <harry.van.haa...@intel.com>; Liu, Yong
> >>>>>>> <yong....@intel.com>; Ma, WenwuX <wenwux...@intel.com>
> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/2] vhost: enable IOMMU for
> async
> >>>>>>> vhost
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 7/5/21 2:16 PM, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 05-Jul-21 9:40 AM, Xuan Ding wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> The use of IOMMU has many advantages, such as isolation and
> address
> >>>>>>>>> translation. This patch extends the capbility of DMA engine to use
> >>>>>>>>> IOMMU if the DMA device is bound to vfio.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> When set memory table, the guest memory will be mapped
> >>>>>>>>> into the default container of DPDK.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Xuan Ding <xuan.d...@intel.com>
> >>>>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>>> doc/guides/prog_guide/vhost_lib.rst | 9 ++++++
> >>>>>>>>> lib/vhost/rte_vhost.h | 1 +
> >>>>>>>>> lib/vhost/socket.c | 9 ++++++
> >>>>>>>>> lib/vhost/vhost.h | 1 +
> >>>>>>>>> lib/vhost/vhost_user.c | 46
> >>>>>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >>>>>>>>> 5 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> diff --git a/doc/guides/prog_guide/vhost_lib.rst
> >>>>>>>>> b/doc/guides/prog_guide/vhost_lib.rst
> >>>>>>>>> index 05c42c9b11..c3beda23d9 100644
> >>>>>>>>> --- a/doc/guides/prog_guide/vhost_lib.rst
> >>>>>>>>> +++ b/doc/guides/prog_guide/vhost_lib.rst
> >>>>>>>>> @@ -118,6 +118,15 @@ The following is an overview of some
> key
> >> Vhost
> >>>>>>>>> API functions:
> >>>>>>>>> It is disabled by default.
> >>>>>>>>> + - ``RTE_VHOST_USER_ASYNC_USE_VFIO``
> >>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>> + In asynchronous data path, vhost liarary is not aware of which
> >>>>>>>>> driver
> >>>>>>>>> + (igb_uio/vfio) the DMA device is bound to. Application should
> >>>>>>>>> pass
> >>>>>>>>> + this flag to tell vhost library whether IOMMU should be
> >>>>>>>>> programmed
> >>>>>>>>> + for guest memory.
> >>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>> + It is disabled by default.
> >>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>> - ``RTE_VHOST_USER_NET_COMPLIANT_OL_FLAGS``
> >>>>>>>>> Since v16.04, the vhost library forwards checksum and gso
> >>>>>>>>> requests for
> >>>>>>>>> diff --git a/lib/vhost/rte_vhost.h b/lib/vhost/rte_vhost.h
> >>>>>>>>> index 8d875e9322..a766ea7b6b 100644
> >>>>>>>>> --- a/lib/vhost/rte_vhost.h
> >>>>>>>>> +++ b/lib/vhost/rte_vhost.h
> >>>>>>>>> @@ -37,6 +37,7 @@ extern "C" {
> >>>>>>>>> #define RTE_VHOST_USER_LINEARBUF_SUPPORT (1ULL << 6)
> >>>>>>>>> #define RTE_VHOST_USER_ASYNC_COPY (1ULL << 7)
> >>>>>>>>> #define RTE_VHOST_USER_NET_COMPLIANT_OL_FLAGS
> (1ULL <<
> >> 8)
> >>>>>>>>> +#define RTE_VHOST_USER_ASYNC_USE_VFIO (1ULL << 9)
> >>>>>>>>> /* Features. */
> >>>>>>>>> #ifndef VIRTIO_NET_F_GUEST_ANNOUNCE
> >>>>>>>>> diff --git a/lib/vhost/socket.c b/lib/vhost/socket.c
> >>>>>>>>> index 5d0d728d52..77c722c86b 100644
> >>>>>>>>> --- a/lib/vhost/socket.c
> >>>>>>>>> +++ b/lib/vhost/socket.c
> >>>>>>>>> @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ struct vhost_user_socket {
> >>>>>>>>> bool extbuf;
> >>>>>>>>> bool linearbuf;
> >>>>>>>>> bool async_copy;
> >>>>>>>>> + bool async_use_vfio;
> >>>>>>>>> bool net_compliant_ol_flags;
> >>>>>>>>> /*
> >>>>>>>>> @@ -243,6 +244,13 @@ vhost_user_add_connection(int fd,
> struct
> >>>>>>>>> vhost_user_socket *vsocket)
> >>>>>>>>> dev->async_copy = 1;
> >>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>> + if (vsocket->async_use_vfio) {
> >>>>>>>>> + dev = get_device(vid);
> >>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>> + if (dev)
> >>>>>>>>> + dev->async_use_vfio = 1;
> >>>>>>>>> + }
> >>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>> VHOST_LOG_CONFIG(INFO, "new device, handle is %d\n",
> vid);
> >>>>>>>>> if (vsocket->notify_ops->new_connection) {
> >>>>>>>>> @@ -879,6 +887,7 @@ rte_vhost_driver_register(const char
> *path,
> >>>>>>>>> uint64_t flags)
> >>>>>>>>> vsocket->extbuf = flags &
> RTE_VHOST_USER_EXTBUF_SUPPORT;
> >>>>>>>>> vsocket->linearbuf = flags &
> >>>> RTE_VHOST_USER_LINEARBUF_SUPPORT;
> >>>>>>>>> vsocket->async_copy = flags &
> RTE_VHOST_USER_ASYNC_COPY;
> >>>>>>>>> + vsocket->async_use_vfio = flags &
> >>>>>>> RTE_VHOST_USER_ASYNC_USE_VFIO;
> >>>>>>>>> vsocket->net_compliant_ol_flags = flags &
> >>>>>>>>> RTE_VHOST_USER_NET_COMPLIANT_OL_FLAGS;
> >>>>>>>>> if (vsocket->async_copy &&
> >>>>>>>>> diff --git a/lib/vhost/vhost.h b/lib/vhost/vhost.h
> >>>>>>>>> index 8078ddff79..fb775ce4ed 100644
> >>>>>>>>> --- a/lib/vhost/vhost.h
> >>>>>>>>> +++ b/lib/vhost/vhost.h
> >>>>>>>>> @@ -370,6 +370,7 @@ struct virtio_net {
> >>>>>>>>> int16_t broadcast_rarp;
> >>>>>>>>> uint32_t nr_vring;
> >>>>>>>>> int async_copy;
> >>>>>>>>> + int async_use_vfio;
> >>>>>>>>> int extbuf;
> >>>>>>>>> int linearbuf;
> >>>>>>>>> struct vhost_virtqueue
> *virtqueue[VHOST_MAX_QUEUE_PAIRS *
> >>>>>>>>> 2];
> >>>>>>>>> diff --git a/lib/vhost/vhost_user.c b/lib/vhost/vhost_user.c
> >>>>>>>>> index 8f0eba6412..f3703f2e72 100644
> >>>>>>>>> --- a/lib/vhost/vhost_user.c
> >>>>>>>>> +++ b/lib/vhost/vhost_user.c
> >>>>>>>>> @@ -45,6 +45,7 @@
> >>>>>>>>> #include <rte_common.h>
> >>>>>>>>> #include <rte_malloc.h>
> >>>>>>>>> #include <rte_log.h>
> >>>>>>>>> +#include <rte_vfio.h>
> >>>>>>>>> #include "iotlb.h"
> >>>>>>>>> #include "vhost.h"
> >>>>>>>>> @@ -141,6 +142,36 @@ get_blk_size(int fd)
> >>>>>>>>> return ret == -1 ? (uint64_t)-1 :
> >>>>>>>>> (uint64_t)stat.st_blksize;
> >>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>> +static int
> >>>>>>>>> +async_dma_map(struct rte_vhost_mem_region *region, bool
> do_map)
> >>>>>>>>> +{
> >>>>>>>>> + int ret = 0;
> >>>>>>>>> + uint64_t host_iova;
> >>>>>>>>> + host_iova = rte_mem_virt2iova((void
> >>>>>>>>> *)(uintptr_t)region->host_user_addr);
> >>>>>>>>> + if (do_map) {
> >>>>>>>>> + /* Add mapped region into the default container of DPDK.
> */
> >>>>>>>>> + ret =
> >>>>>>> rte_vfio_container_dma_map(RTE_VFIO_DEFAULT_CONTAINER_FD,
> >>>>>>>>> + region->host_user_addr,
> >>>>>>>>> + host_iova,
> >>>>>>>>> + region->size);
> >>>>>>>>> + if (ret) {
> >>>>>>>>> + VHOST_LOG_CONFIG(ERR, "DMA engine map failed\n");
> >>>>>>>>> + return ret;
> >>>>>>>>> + }
> >>>>>>>>> + } else {
> >>>>>>>>> + /* Remove mapped region from the default container of
> >>>>>>>>> DPDK. */
> >>>>>>>>> + ret =
> >>>>>>>>>
> rte_vfio_container_dma_unmap(RTE_VFIO_DEFAULT_CONTAINER_FD,
> >>>>>>>>> + region->host_user_addr,
> >>>>>>>>> + host_iova,
> >>>>>>>>> + region->size);
> >>>>>>>>> + if (ret) {
> >>>>>>>>> + VHOST_LOG_CONFIG(ERR, "DMA engine unmap
> failed\n");
> >>>>>>>>> + return ret;
> >>>>>>>>> + }
> >>>>>>>>> + }
> >>>>>>>>> + return ret;
> >>>>>>>>> +}
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> We've been discussing this off list with Xuan, and unfortunately
> >>>>>>>> this is
> >>>>>>>> a blocker for now.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Currently, the x86 IOMMU does not support partial unmap - the
> >> segments
> >>>>>>>> have to be unmapped exactly the same addr/len as they were
> mapped.
> >> We
> >>>>>>>> also concatenate adjacent mappings to prevent filling up the DMA
> >>>>>>>> mapping
> >>>>>>>> entry table with superfluous entries.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> This means that, when two unrelated mappings are contiguous in
> >> memory
> >>>>>>>> (e.g. if you map regions 1 and 2 independently, but they happen to
> be
> >>>>>>>> sitting right next to each other in virtual memory), we cannot later
> >>>>>>>> unmap one of them because, even though these are two separate
> >>>>>>> mappings
> >>>>>>>> as far as kernel VFIO infrastructure is concerned, the mapping gets
> >>>>>>>> compacted and looks like one single mapping to VFIO, so DPDK API
> will
> >>>>>>>> not let us unmap region 1 without also unmapping region 2.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The proper fix for this problem would be to always map memory
> >>>>>>>> page-by-page regardless of where it comes from (we already do
> that for
> >>>>>>>> internal memory, but not for external). However, the reason this
> works
> >>>>>>>> for internal memory is because when mapping internal memory
> >> segments,
> >>>>>>>> *we know the page size*. For external memory segments, there is
> no
> >> such
> >>>>>>>> guarantee, so we cannot deduce page size for a given memory
> segment,
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>> thus can't map things page-by-page.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> So, the proper fix for it would be to add page size to the VFIO DMA
> >>>>>>>> API.
> >>>>>>>> Unfortunately, it probably has to wait until 21.11 because it is an
> API
> >>>>>>>> change.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The slightly hacky fix for this would be to forego user mem map
> >>>>>>>> concatenation and trust that user is not going to do anything
> stupid,
> >>>>>>>> and will not spam the VFIO DMA API without reason. I would
> rather
> >>>>>>>> not go
> >>>>>>>> down this road, but this could be an option in this case.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks Anatoly for the detailed description of the issue.
> >>>>>>> It may be possible to either create a versioned symbol for this API
> >>>>>>> change, or maybe even to have a temporary internal API.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But I think this series in its current form is not acceptable, so
> >>>>>>> waiting for v21.11 would be the best option (we may want to send
> the
> >>>>>>> deprecation notice in this release though).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In this series, I don't like the user application has to pass a flag
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>> state whether the DMA engine uses VFIO or not. AFAICT, this new
> revision
> >>>>>>> does not implement what was discussed in the previous one, i.e.
> >>>>>>> supporting both IOVA_AS_VA and IOVA_AS_PA.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks for your comments. Here I hope to explain some questions:
> >>>>>> 1. Whether both IOVA_AS_VA and IOVA_AS_PA are supported now?
> >>>>>> A: Both IOVA_AS_PA and IOVA_AS_VA are supported now. In this
> version,
> >> the
> >>>>>> virtual address is replaced with iova address of mapped region, and
> >>>>>> the iova
> >>>>>> address is selected to program the IOMMU instead of virtual address
> only.
> >>>>
> >>>> Good!
> >>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2. Why a flag is chosen to be passed by application?
> >>>>>> A: Yes, as we discussed before, the rte_eal_iova_mode() API can be
> >>>>>> used to
> >>>>>> get the IOVA mode, so as to determine whether IOMMU should be
> >>>> programmed.
> >>>>>> However, in the implementation process, I found a problem. That is
> how to
> >>>>>> distinguish the VFIO PA and IGB_UIO PA. Because for VFIO cases, we
> >> should
> >>>>>> always program the IOMMU. While in IGB_UIO cases, it depends on
> >> IOMMU
> >>>>>> capability of platform.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> How does one program IOMMU with igb_uio? I was under impression
> that
> >>>>> igb_uio (and uio_pci_generic for that matter) does not provide such
> >>>>> facilities.
> >>>>
> >>>> +1
> >>>
> >>> Maybe some misunderstanding in this sentence here.
> >>> In our design, if rte_eal_vfio_is_enabled("vfio") is true, iommu will be
> >> programmed.
> >>> True means vfio module is modprobed.
> >>>
> >>> But there is an exception here, that is, even if vfio module is modprobed,
> >>> DPDK user still bind all the devices to igb_uio.
> >>>
> >>> This situation can be distinguished in DPDK eal initialization, because
> >>> the
> >> resource mapping
> >>> is according to the driver loaded by each device(rte_pci_map_device).
> >>>
> >>> But in our scenario, this judgment is somewhat weak. Because we cannot
> get
> >>> the device driver info in vhost library. I also think it is unreasonable
> >>> for
> vhost to
> >>> do this. Only trust that users will not use it like this. Thoughts for
> >>> this
> scenario?
> >>
> >> I don't see how igb_uio would make any difference at all. If you are
> >> using igb_uio, you *don't have DMA mapping at all* and will use raw
> >> physical addresses. Assuming your code supports this, that's all you're
> >> ever going to get. The point of VFIO is to have memory regions that are
> >> mapped for DMA *because real physical addresses are assumed to be not
> >> available*. When you're using igb_uio, you effectively do have DMA
> >> access to the entire memory, and thus can bypass IOMMU altogether
> >> (assuming you're using passthrough mode).
> >
> > My concern is exactly here.
> > In igb_uio cases, although devices are not added to the default container in
> eal init,
> > but the "IOMMU programming" actually happens when the
> rte_vfio_container_dma_map() is called.
> > It is no harm but it is also unnecessary.
>
> Yes, it is unnecessary, but it's also not actively harmful, which means
> you can still do it without any regard as to whether you do or don't
> have IOMMU :)
>
> Think of a hybrid VFIO/igb_uio setup - some NICs will have VFIO, some
> will have igb_uio. The igb_uio-bound NICs will not care if you have
> mapped anything for DMA because they don't go through IOMMU, things
> will
> "just work". The VFIO-bound NICs will get the memory mapped, because
> they are the ones who actually need the DMA mapping.
>
> So, what you get is, if you do VFIO DMA mapping unconditionally, 1) NICs
> with igb_uio won't care about this, and 2) NICs with VFIO will benefit.
> You're not "mapping" the NICs, you're mapping the memory you're
> accessing with those NICs. You need it to be accessible to both, but
> since you have no way of knowing whether 1) any of the current HW needs
> VFIO, and 2) any of *future hotplugged* HW needs VFIO, the easiest way
> to solve this problem is just to map things regardless, and live with
> the "unnecessary" but harmless mapping in the worst case.
Get your point! It's just such a worst case bothers me.
I have been thinking about how to avoid the igb_uio case programming IOMMU. But
I cannot realize this just through a judgement.
Since it is harmless in this case, not to mention, a platform without IOMMU
won’t do anything useful. I think it works to program IOMMU unconditionally.
>
> >
> >>
> >> Bottom line: do VFIO DMA mapping unconditionally. If VFIO is active -
> >> great, the memory will be DMA mapped. If it's not active - no harm will
> >> ever be done by mapping the memory for DMA anyway.
> >
> > Do VFIO DMA mapping unconditionally, do you mean the
> rte_eal_vfio_is_enabled() is unnecessary?
> > What if the platform does not have IOMMU?
> >
> > Thanks very much.
> >
>
> If the platform has no IOMMU, the API call will just not do anything
> useful, so no harm done.
So the only thing remained is the API change for page-by-page mapping
in next release.
Thanks,
Xuan
>
> > Regards,
> > Xuan
> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> Thanks,
> >> Anatoly
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Anatoly
