On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 09:38:07AM +0200, Auger Eric wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On 05/18/2018 07:53 AM, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 03:39:50PM +0200, Auger Eric wrote:
> >> Hi Peter,
> >>
> >> On 05/04/2018 05:08 AM, Peter Xu wrote:
> >>> For UNMAP-only IOMMU notifiers, we don't really need to walk the page
> >> s/really// ;-)
> >
> > Ok.
> >
> >>> tables. Fasten that procedure by skipping the page table walk. That
> >>> should boost performance for UNMAP-only notifiers like vhost.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> include/hw/i386/intel_iommu.h | 2 ++
> >>> hw/i386/intel_iommu.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> >>> 2 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/include/hw/i386/intel_iommu.h b/include/hw/i386/intel_iommu.h
> >>> index ee517704e7..9e0a6c1c6a 100644
> >>> --- a/include/hw/i386/intel_iommu.h
> >>> +++ b/include/hw/i386/intel_iommu.h
> >>> @@ -93,6 +93,8 @@ struct VTDAddressSpace {
> >>> IntelIOMMUState *iommu_state;
> >>> VTDContextCacheEntry context_cache_entry;
> >>> QLIST_ENTRY(VTDAddressSpace) next;
> >>> + /* Superset of notifier flags that this address space has */
> >>> + IOMMUNotifierFlag notifier_flags;
> >>> };
> >>>
> >>> struct VTDBus {
> >>> diff --git a/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c b/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c
> >>> index 112971638d..9a418abfb6 100644
> >>> --- a/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c
> >>> +++ b/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c
> >>> @@ -138,6 +138,12 @@ static inline void vtd_iommu_unlock(IntelIOMMUState
> >>> *s)
> >>> qemu_mutex_unlock(&s->iommu_lock);
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> +/* Whether the address space needs to notify new mappings */
> >>> +static inline gboolean vtd_as_notify_mappings(VTDAddressSpace *as)
> >> would suggest vtd_as_has_map_notifier()? But tastes & colours ;-)
> >
> > Yeah it is. But okay, I can switch to that especially it's only used
> > in this patch and it's new.
> >
> >>> +{
> >>> + return as->notifier_flags & IOMMU_NOTIFIER_MAP;
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> /* GHashTable functions */
> >>> static gboolean vtd_uint64_equal(gconstpointer v1, gconstpointer v2)
> >>> {
> >>> @@ -1433,14 +1439,35 @@ static void
> >>> vtd_iotlb_page_invalidate_notify(IntelIOMMUState *s,
> >>> VTDAddressSpace *vtd_as;
> >>> VTDContextEntry ce;
> >>> int ret;
> >>> + hwaddr size = (1 << am) * VTD_PAGE_SIZE;
> >>>
> >>> QLIST_FOREACH(vtd_as, &(s->notifiers_list), next) {
> >>> ret = vtd_dev_to_context_entry(s, pci_bus_num(vtd_as->bus),
> >>> vtd_as->devfn, &ce);
> >>> if (!ret && domain_id == VTD_CONTEXT_ENTRY_DID(ce.hi)) {
> >>> - vtd_page_walk(&ce, addr, addr + (1 << am) * VTD_PAGE_SIZE,
> >>> - vtd_page_invalidate_notify_hook,
> >>> - (void *)&vtd_as->iommu, true, s->aw_bits);
> >>> + if (vtd_as_notify_mappings(vtd_as)) {
> >>> + /*
> >>> + * For MAP-inclusive notifiers, we need to walk the
> >>> + * page table to sync the shadow page table.
> >>> + */
> >> Potentially we may have several notifiers attached to the IOMMU MR ~
> >> vtd_as, each of them having different flags. Those flags are OR'ed in
> >> memory_region_update_iommu_notify_flags and this is the one you now
> >> store in the vtd_as. So maybe your comment may rather state:
> >> as soon as we have at least one MAP notifier, we need to do the PTW?
> >
> > Actually this is not 100% clear too, since all the "MAP notifiers" are
> > actually both MAP+UNMAP notifiers... Maybe:
>
> Can't IOMMU_NOTIFIER_MAP flag value be used without
> IOMMU_NOTIFIER_UNMAP? I don't see such restriction in the
> memory_region_register_iommu_notifier API.
Yes from the API it can, but I can hardly think of a use case of
that.
> >
> > As long as we have MAP notifications registered in any of our IOMMU
> > notifiers, we need to sync the shadow page table.
> >
> >>
> >> nit: not related to this patch: vtd_page_walk kerneldoc comments misses
> >> @notify_unmap param comment
> >> side note: the name of the hook is a bit misleading as it suggests we
> >> invalidate the entry, whereas we update any valid entry and invalidate
> >> stale ones (if notify_unmap=true)?
> >>> + vtd_page_walk(&ce, addr, addr + size,
> >>> + vtd_page_invalidate_notify_hook,
> >>> + (void *)&vtd_as->iommu, true, s->aw_bits);
> >>> + } else {
> >>> + /*
> >>> + * For UNMAP-only notifiers, we don't need to walk the
> >>> + * page tables. We just deliver the PSI down to
> >>> + * invalidate caches.
> >>
> >> We just unmap the range?
> >
> > Isn't it the same thing? :)
> >
> > If to be explicit, here we know we only registered UNMAP
> > notifications, it's not really "unmap", it's really cache
> > invalidations only.
> yes you're right I meant We just invalidate the range in cache. The
> sentence "We just deliver the PSI down to invalidate caches." was not
> crystal clear to me at first reading.
Okay. I just posted a new version, please feel free to comment again
if you have better suggestions. Otherwise I'll just keep the comment
for now. Thanks,
--
Peter Xu
