> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Williamson [mailto:alex.william...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 11:57 PM
> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777
> Cc: Yoder Stuart-B08248; Wood Scott-B07421; Graf Alexander-B36701; qemu-
> de...@nongnu.org; qemu-...@nongnu.org
> Subject: Re: VFIO: Not require to make VFIO_IOMMU_MAP_DMA for MMAPED PCI bars
>
> On Thu, 2013-02-14 at 08:22 +0000, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote:
> > Hi Alex Williamson,
> >
> > I am able (with some hacks :)) to directly assign the e1000 PCI device
> > to KVM guest using VFIO on Freescale device. One of the problem I am
> > facing is about the DMA mapping in IOMMU for PCI device BARs. On
> > Freescale devices, the mmaped PCI device BARs are not required to be
> > mapped in IOMMU. Typically the flow of in/out transaction (from CPU)
> > is:
> >
> > Incoming flow:
> >
> > -----| |----------| |---------------|
> |-------------|
> > CORE |<----<------<-----<--| IOMMU |<---<---<|
> > PCI-Controller|<------<-----
> <----<| PCI device |
> > -----| |----------| |---------------|
> |-------------|
> >
> > Outgoing Flow: IOMMU is bypassed for out transactions
> >
> > -----| |----------| |---------------|
> |-------------|
> > CORE |>---->------>----| | IOMMU | ->-->|
> > PCI-Controller|>------>-----
> >---->| PCI device |
> > -----| | |----------| ^ |---------------|
> |-------------|
> > | |
> > |------------------|
>
> Mapping the BAR into the IOMMU isn't for this second use case, CPU to device
> is
> never IOMMU translated. Instead, it's for this:
>
> |----------| |---------------| |-------------|
> | IOMMU |<---<---<| PCI-Controller|<------<-----<----<| PCI device |
> |----------| |---------------| |-------------|
> |
> | |---------------| |-------------|
> +-->---->--- ->| PCI-Controller|>------>----->---->| PCI device |
> |---------------| |-------------|
>
> It's perfectly fine to not support peer-to-peer DMA, but let's skip it where
> it's not supported in case it might actually work in some cases.
>
> > Also because of some hardware limitations on our IOMMU it is difficult
> > to map these BAR regions with RAM (DDR) regions. So on Freescale
> > device we want the VFIO_IOMMU_MAP_DMA ioctl to be called for RAM
> > regions (DDR) only and _not_ for these mmaped ram regions of PCI
> > device bars. I can understand that we need to add these mmaped PCI
> > bars as RAM type in qemu memory_region_*(). So for that I tried to
> > skip these regions in VFIO memory_listeners. Below changes which works
> > for me. I am not sure whether this is correct approach, please
> > suggest.
> >
> > -------------
> > diff --git a/hw/vfio_pci.c b/hw/vfio_pci.c index c51ae67..63728d8
> > 100644
> > --- a/hw/vfio_pci.c
> > +++ b/hw/vfio_pci.c
> > @@ -1115,9 +1115,35 @@ static int vfio_dma_map(VFIOContainer *container,
> hwaddr iova,
> > return -errno;
> > }
> >
> > -static bool vfio_listener_skipped_section(MemoryRegionSection
> > *section)
> > +static int memory_region_is_mmap_bars(VFIOContainer *container,
> > + MemoryRegionSection *section)
> > {
> > - return !memory_region_is_ram(section->mr);
> > + VFIOGroup *group;
> > + VFIODevice *vdev;
> > + int i;
> > +
> > + QLIST_FOREACH(group, &container->group_list, next) {
>
> I think you want to start at the global &group_list
Why you think global? My understanding is that the operation on dma_map/unmap
is limited to a group in the given container.
>
> > + QLIST_FOREACH(vdev, &group->device_list, next) {
> > + if (vdev->msix->mmap_mem.ram_addr ==
> > + section->mr->ram_addr)
>
> Note the comment in memory.h:
>
> struct MemoryRegion {
> /* All fields are private - violators will be prosecuted */
> ...
> ram_addr_t ram_addr;
>
> You'll need to invent some kind of memory region comparison interfaces instead
> of accessing these private fields.
You mean adding some api ine memory.c?
>
> > + return 1;
> > + for (i = 0; i < PCI_ROM_SLOT; i++) {
> > + VFIOBAR *bar = &vdev->bars[i];
> > + if (bar->mmap_mem.ram_addr == section->mr->ram_addr)
> > + return 1;
> > + }
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
>
> It's a pretty heavy weight function, I think the memory API should help us
> differentiate MMIO from RAM.
What about adding a bool in " struct MemoryRegion {"
Bool require_iommu_map;
There will be APIs to set/clear this bool and default all "ram = true", will
have "require_iommu_map = true"
if (!(memory_region->ram == true && memory_region->require_iommu_map == true)
skip_iommumap;
>
> > +static bool vfio_listener_skipped_section(VFIOContainer *container,
> > + MemoryRegionSection
> > +*section) {
> > + if (!memory_region_is_ram(section->mr))
> > + return 1;
>
> Need some kind of conditional here for platforms that support peer-to-peer.
> Thanks,
What about adding a iommu_type will help here (VFIO_TYPE2_IOMMU), which does
not require BARs to be mapped in iommu ?
Thanks
-Bharat
>
> Alex
>
> > + return memory_region_is_mmap_bars(container, section);
> > }
> >
> > static void vfio_listener_region_add(MemoryListener *listener, @@
> > -1129,7 +1155,7 @@ static void vfio_listener_region_add(MemoryListener
> *listener,
> > void *vaddr;
> > int ret;
> >
> > - if (vfio_listener_skipped_section(section)) {
> > + if (vfio_listener_skipped_section(container, section)) {
> > DPRINTF("vfio: SKIPPING region_add %"HWADDR_PRIx" - %"PRIx64"\n",
> > section->offset_within_address_space,
> > section->offset_within_address_space + section->size
> > - 1); @@ -1173,7 +1199,7 @@ static void
> vfio_listener_region_del(MemoryListener *listener,
> > hwaddr iova, end;
> > int ret;
> > - if (vfio_listener_skipped_section(section)) {
> > + if (vfio_listener_skipped_section(container, section)) {
> > DPRINTF("vfio: SKIPPING region_del %"HWADDR_PRIx" - %"PRIx64"\n",
> > section->offset_within_address_space,
> > section->offset_within_address_space + section->size
> > - 1);
> >
> > -----------------
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> > -Bharat
> >
>
>
>
