On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 05:36:38PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 05:25:48PM +0800, Yu Zhang wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 04:51:22PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 07:49:47PM +0800, Yu Zhang wrote:
> > > > This patch updates vtd_lookup_iotlb() to search cached mappings only
> > > > for all page levels supported by address width of current vIOMMU. Also,
> > > > to cover 57-bit width, the shift of source id(VTD_IOTLB_SID_SHIFT) and
> > > > of page level(VTD_IOTLB_LVL_SHIFT) are enlarged by 9 - the stride of
> > > > one paging structure level.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Yu Zhang <yu.c.zh...@linux.intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com>
> > > > Cc: Marcel Apfelbaum <marcel.apfelb...@gmail.com>
> > > > Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com>
> > > > Cc: Richard Henderson <r...@twiddle.net>
> > > > Cc: Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com>
> > > > Cc: Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > hw/i386/intel_iommu.c | 5 +++--
> > > > hw/i386/intel_iommu_internal.h | 7 ++-----
> > > > 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c b/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c
> > > > index 9cdf755..ce7e17e 100644
> > > > --- a/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c
> > > > +++ b/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c
> > > > @@ -254,11 +254,12 @@ static uint64_t vtd_get_iotlb_gfn(hwaddr addr,
> > > > uint32_t level)
> > > > static VTDIOTLBEntry *vtd_lookup_iotlb(IntelIOMMUState *s, uint16_t
> > > > source_id,
> > > > hwaddr addr)
> > > > {
> > > > - VTDIOTLBEntry *entry;
> > > > + VTDIOTLBEntry *entry = NULL;
> > > > uint64_t key;
> > > > int level;
> > > > + int max_level = (s->aw_bits - VTD_PAGE_SHIFT_4K) /
> > > > VTD_SL_LEVEL_BITS;
> > > >
> > > > - for (level = VTD_SL_PT_LEVEL; level < VTD_SL_PML4_LEVEL; level++) {
> > > > + for (level = VTD_SL_PT_LEVEL; level < max_level; level++) {
> > >
> > > My understanding of current IOTLB is that it only caches the last
> > > level of mapping, say:
> > >
> > > - level 1: 4K page
> > > - level 2: 2M page
> > > - level 3: 1G page
> > >
> > > So we don't check against level=4 even if x-aw-bits=48 is specified.
> > >
> > > Here does it mean that we're going to have... 512G iommu huge pages?
> > >
> >
> > No. My bad, I misunderstood this routine. And now I believe we do not
> > need this patch. :-)
>
> Yeah good to confirm that :-)
Sorry, Peter. I still have question about this part. I agree we do not need
to do the extra loop - therefore no need for the max_level part introduced
in this patch.
But as to modification of VTD_IOTLB_SID_SHIFT/VTD_IOTLB_LVL_SHIFT, we may
still need to do it due to the enlarged gfn, to search an IOTLB entry for
a 4K mapping, the pfn itself could be as large as 45-bit.
Besides, currently vtd_get_iotlb_gfn() is just shifting 12 bits for all
different levels, is this necessary? I mean, how about we do the shift
based on current level?
static uint64_t vtd_get_iotlb_gfn(hwaddr addr, uint32_t level)
{
- return (addr & vtd_slpt_level_page_mask(level)) >> VTD_PAGE_SHIFT_4K;
+ uint32_t shift = vtd_slpt_level_shift(level);
+ return (addr & vtd_slpt_level_page_mask(level)) >> shift;
}
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Peter Xu
>
B.R.
Yu
