Re: [PATCH] vhost: introduce vDPA based backend

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 01:50:28PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> 
> On 2020/2/5 äå1:31, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 11:12:21AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > On 2020/2/5 äå10:05, Tiwei Bie wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 02:46:16PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > On 2020/2/4 äå2:01, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 11:30:11AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > > > 5) generate diffs of memory table and using IOMMU API to setup the dma
> > > > > > > mapping in this method
> > > > > > Frankly I think that's a bunch of work. Why not a MAP/UNMAP interface?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > Sure, so that basically VHOST_IOTLB_UPDATE/INVALIDATE I think?
> > > > Do you mean we let userspace to only use VHOST_IOTLB_UPDATE/INVALIDATE
> > > > to do the DMA mapping in vhost-vdpa case? When vIOMMU isn't available,
> > > > userspace will set msg->iova to GPA, otherwise userspace will set
> > > > msg->iova to GIOVA, and vhost-vdpa module will get HPA from msg->uaddr?
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Tiwei
> > > I think so. Michael, do you think this makes sense?
> > > 
> > > Thanks
> > to make sure, could you post the suggested argument format for
> > these ioctls?
> > 
> 
> It's the existed uapi:
> 
> /* no alignment requirement */
> struct vhost_iotlb_msg {
> ÂÂÂ __u64 iova;
> ÂÂÂ __u64 size;
> ÂÂÂ __u64 uaddr;
> #define VHOST_ACCESS_ROÂÂÂÂÂ 0x1
> #define VHOST_ACCESS_WOÂÂÂÂÂ 0x2
> #define VHOST_ACCESS_RWÂÂÂÂÂ 0x3
> ÂÂÂ __u8 perm;
> #define VHOST_IOTLB_MISSÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 1
> #define VHOST_IOTLB_UPDATEÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 2
> #define VHOST_IOTLB_INVALIDATEÂÂÂÂ 3
> #define VHOST_IOTLB_ACCESS_FAILÂÂÂ 4
> ÂÂÂ __u8 type;
> };
> 
> #define VHOST_IOTLB_MSG 0x1
> #define VHOST_IOTLB_MSG_V2 0x2
> 
> struct vhost_msg {
> ÂÂÂ int type;
> ÂÂÂ union {
> ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ struct vhost_iotlb_msg iotlb;
> ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ __u8 padding[64];
> ÂÂÂ };
> };
> 
> struct vhost_msg_v2 {
> ÂÂÂ __u32 type;
> ÂÂÂ __u32 reserved;
> ÂÂÂ union {
> ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ struct vhost_iotlb_msg iotlb;
> ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ __u8 padding[64];
> ÂÂÂ };
> };

Oh ok.  So with a real device, I suspect we do not want to wait for each
change to be processed by device completely, so we might want an asynchronous variant
and then some kind of flush that tells device "you better apply these now".

-- 
MST