Hi,
Sorry for the late reply.
On Tuesday, August 13, 2024 12:23:55 PM GMT+5:30 Eugenio Perez Martin wrote:
> [...]
> > I think I have understood what's going on in "vhost_vdpa_svq_map_rings",
> > "vhost_vdpa_svq_map_ring" and "vhost_vdpa_dma_map". But based on
> > what I have understood it looks like the driver area is getting mapped to
> > an iova which is read-only for vhost_vdpa. Please let me know where I am
> > going wrong.
>
> You're not going wrong there. The device does not need to write into
> this area, so we map it read only.
>
> > Consider the following implementation in hw/virtio/vhost_vdpa.c:
> > > size_t device_size = vhost_svq_device_area_size(svq);
> > > size_t driver_size = vhost_svq_driver_area_size(svq);
> >
> > The driver size includes the descriptor area and the driver area. For
> > packed vq, the driver area is the "driver event suppression" structure
> > which should be read-only for the device according to the virtio spec
> > (section 2.8.10) [1].
> >
> > > size_t avail_offset;
> > > bool ok;
> > >
> > > vhost_svq_get_vring_addr(svq, &svq_addr);
> >
> > Over here "svq_addr.desc_user_addr" will point to the descriptor area
> > while "svq_addr.avail_user_addr" will point to the driver area/driver
> > event suppression structure.
> >
> > > driver_region = (DMAMap) {
> > >
> > > .translated_addr = svq_addr.desc_user_addr,
> > > .size = driver_size - 1,
> > > .perm = IOMMU_RO,
> > >
> > > };
> >
> > This region points to the descriptor area and its size encompasses the
> > driver area as well with RO permission.
> >
> > > ok = vhost_vdpa_svq_map_ring(v, &driver_region, errp);
> >
> > The above function checks the value of needle->perm and sees that it is
> > RO.
> >
> > It then calls "vhost_vdpa_dma_map" with the following arguments:
> > > r = vhost_vdpa_dma_map(v->shared, v->address_space_id, needle->iova,
> > >
> > > needle->size + 1,
> > > (void
> > > *)(uintptr_t)needle->tra
> > > nslated_addr,
> > > needle->perm ==
> > > IOMMU_RO);
> >
> > Since needle->size includes the driver area as well, the driver area will
> > be mapped to a RO page in the device's address space, right?
>
> Yes, the device does not need to write into the descriptor area in the
> supported split virtqueue case. So the descriptor area is also mapped
> RO at this moment.
>
> This change in the packed virtqueue case, so we need to map it RW.
I understand this now. I'll see how the implementation can be modified to take
this into account. I'll see if making the driver area and descriptor ring helps.
> > > if (unlikely(!ok)) {
> > >
> > > error_prepend(errp, "Cannot create vq driver region: ");
> > > return false;
> > >
> > > }
> > > addr->desc_user_addr = driver_region.iova;
> > > avail_offset = svq_addr.avail_user_addr - svq_addr.desc_user_addr;
> > > addr->avail_user_addr = driver_region.iova + avail_offset;
> >
> > I think "addr->desc_user_addr" and "addr->avail_user_addr" will both be
> > mapped to a RO page in the device's address space.
> >
> > > device_region = (DMAMap) {
> > >
> > > .translated_addr = svq_addr.used_user_addr,
> > > .size = device_size - 1,
> > > .perm = IOMMU_RW,
> > >
> > > };
> >
> > The device area/device event suppression structure on the other hand will
> > be mapped to a RW page.
> >
> > I also think there are other issues with the current state of the patch.
> > According to the virtio spec (section 2.8.10) [1], the "device event
> > suppression" structure needs to be write-only for the device but is
> > mapped to a RW page.
>
> Yes, I'm not sure if all IOMMU supports write-only maps to be honest.
Got it. I think it should be alright to defer this issue until later.
> > Another concern I have is regarding the driver area size for packed vq. In
> >
> > "hw/virtio/vhost-shadow-virtqueue.c" of the current patch:
> > > size_t vhost_svq_driver_area_size(const VhostShadowVirtqueue *svq)
> > > {
> > >
> > > size_t desc_size = sizeof(vring_desc_t) * svq->vring.num;
> > > size_t avail_size = offsetof(vring_avail_t, ring[svq->vring.num]) +
> > >
> > > sizeof(uin
> > > t16_t);
> > >
> > > return ROUND_UP(desc_size + avail_size, qemu_real_host_page_size());
> > >
> > > }
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > size_t vhost_svq_memory_packed(const VhostShadowVirtqueue *svq)
> > > {
> > >
> > > size_t desc_size = sizeof(struct vring_packed_desc) * svq->num_free;
> > > size_t driver_event_suppression = sizeof(struct
> > > vring_packed_desc_event);
> > > size_t device_event_suppression = sizeof(struct
> > > vring_packed_desc_event);
> > >
> > > return ROUND_UP(desc_size + driver_event_suppression +
> > > device_event_suppression,> >
> > > qemu_real_host_page_size());
> > >
> > > }
> >
> > The size returned by "vhost_svq_driver_area_size" might not be the actual
> > driver size which is given by desc_size + driver_event_suppression,
> > right? Will this have to be changed too?
>
> Yes, you're right this needs to be changed too.
Understood. I'll modify this too.
I have been trying to test my changes so far as well. I am not very clear on
a few things.
Q1.
I built QEMU from source with my changes and followed the vdpa_sim +
vhost_vdpa tutorial [1]. The VM seems to be running fine. How do I check
if the packed format is being used instead of the split vq format for shadow
virtqueues? I know the packed format is used when virtio_vdev has got the
VIRTIO_F_RING_PACKED bit enabled. Is there a way of checking that this is
the case?
Q2.
What's the recommended way to see what's going on under the hood? I tried
using the -D option so QEMU's logs are written to a file but the file was empty.
Would using qemu with -monitor stdio or attaching gdb to the QEMU VM be
worthwhile?
Thanks,
Sahil
[1]
https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/hands-vdpa-what-do-you-do-when-you-aint-got-hardware-part-1
