Re: [PATCH] iommu: making IOMMU sysfs nodes API public
From: Alex Williamson
Date: Tue Feb 19 2013 - 15:12:04 EST
On Tue, 2013-02-19 at 18:38 +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 10:24:00PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 17:15 +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> > > On 13/02/13 04:15, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2013-02-13 at 01:42 +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> > > >> On 12/02/13 16:07, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > >>> On Tue, 2013-02-12 at 15:06 +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> > > >>>> Having this patch in a tree, adding new nodes in sysfs
> > > >>>> for IOMMU groups is going to be easier.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> The first candidate for this change is a "dma-window-size"
> > > >>>> property which tells a size of a DMA window of the specific
> > > >>>> IOMMU group which can be used later for locked pages accounting.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I'm still churning on this one; I'm nervous this would basically creat
> > > >>> a /proc free-for-all under /sys/kernel/iommu_group/$GROUP/ where any
> > > >>> iommu driver can add random attributes. That can get ugly for
> > > >>> userspace.
> > > >>
> > > >> Is not it exactly what sysfs is for (unlike /proc)? :)
> > > >
> > > > Um, I hope it's a little more thought out than /proc.
> > > >
> > > >>> On the other hand, for the application of userspace knowing how much
> > > >>> memory to lock for vfio use of a group, it's an appealing location to
> > > >>> get that information. Something like libvirt would already be poking
> > > >>> around here to figure out which devices to bind. Page limits need to be
> > > >>> setup prior to use through vfio, so sysfs is more convenient than
> > > >>> through vfio ioctls.
> > > >>
> > > >> True. DMA window properties do not change since boot so sysfs is the right
> > > >> place to expose them.
> > > >>
> > > >>> But then is dma-window-size just a vfio requirement leaking over into
> > > >>> iommu groups? Can we allow iommu driver based attributes without giving
> > > >>> up control of the namespace? Thanks,
> > > >>
> > > >> Who are you asking these questions? :)
> > > >
> > > > Anyone, including you. Rather than dropping misc files in sysfs to
> > > > describe things about the group, I think the better solution in your
> > > > case might be a link from the group to an existing sysfs directory
> > > > describing the PE. I believe your PE is rooted in a PCI bridge, so that
> > > > presumably already has a representation in sysfs. Can the aperture size
> > > > be determined from something in sysfs for that bridge already? I'm just
> > > > not ready to create a grab bag of sysfs entries for a group yet.
> > > > Thanks,
> > >
> > >
> > > At the moment there is no information neither in sysfs nor
> > > /proc/device-tree about the dma-window. And adding a sysfs entry per PE
> > > (powerpc partitionable end-point which is often a PHB but not always) just
> > > for VFIO is quite heavy.
> > How do you learn the window size and PE extents in the host kernel?
> > > We could add a ppc64 subfolder under /sys/kernel/iommu/xxx/ and put the
> > > "dma-window" property there. And replace it with a symlink when and if we
> > > add something for PE later. Would work?
> Fwiw, I'd suggest a subfolder named for the type of IOMMU, rather than
> > To be clear, you're suggesting /sys/kernel/iommu_groups/$GROUP/xxx/,
> > right? A subfolder really only limits the scope of the mess, so it's
> > not much improvement. What does the interface look like to make those
> > subfolders?
> > The problem we're trying to solve is this call flow:
> > containerfd = open("/dev/vfio/vfio");
> > ioctl(containerfd, VFIO_GET_API_VERSION);
> > ioctl(containerfd, VFIO_CHECK_EXTENSION, ...);
> > groupfd = open("/dev/vfio/$GROUP");
> > ioctl(groupfd, VFIO_GROUP_GET_STATUS);
> > ioctl(groupfd, VFIO_GROUP_SET_CONTAINER, &containerfd);
> > You wanted to lock all the memory for the DMA window here, before we can
> > call VFIO_IOMMU_GET_INFO, but does it need to happen there? We still
> > have a MAP_DMA hook. We could do it all on the first mapping.
> MAP_DMA isn't quite enough, since the guest can also directly cause
> mappings using hypercalls directly implemented in KVM. I think it
> would be feasible to lock on the first mapping (either via MAP_DMA, or
> H_PUT_TCE) though it would be a bit ugly and require that the first
> H_PUT_TCE always bounce out to virtual mode (Alexey, correct me if I'm
> wrong here). IIRC there is also a call to bind the vfio container to
> a (qemu assigned) LIOBN, before the guest can use H_PUT_TCE directly,
> so that might be another place we could do the lock.
Somehow hypercall mappings have to be gated by the userspace setup,
> > It also
> > has a flags field that could augment the behavior to trigger page
> > locking.
> I don't see how the flags help us - we can't have userspace choose to
> skip the locked memory accounting. Or are you suggesting a flag to
> open the container in some sort of dummy mode where only GET_INFO is
> possible, then re-open with the full locking?
Sort of, I don't think it needs to be re-opened, but we had previously
talked about some kind of enable and disable ioctl. "enable" would be
the logical place to lock pages, but then we probably got stuck in
questions around what it means to enable an iommu generically. So what
if instead of a separate enable ioctl we had a flag on DMA_MAP that was
defined as SET_WINDOW where iova and size are passed and specify the
portion of the DMA window that userspace intends to use and which is
therefore locked. If you don't support subwindows, fine, just fail it.
You could have a matching PUT_WINDOW on DMA_UNMAP if you wanted.
> > Adding the window size to sysfs seems more readily convenient,
> > but is it so hard for userspace to open the files and call a couple
> > ioctls to get far enough to call IOMMU_GET_INFO? I'm unconvinced the
> > clutter in sysfs more than just a quick fix. Thanks,
> And finally, as Alexey points out, isn't the point here so we know how
> much rlimit to give qemu? Using ioctls we'd need a special tool just
> to check the dma window sizes, which seems a bit hideous.
Is it more hideous that using iommu groups to report a vfio imposed
restriction? Are a couple open files and a handful of ioctls worse than
code to parse directory entries and the future maintenance of an
unrestricted grab bag of sysfs entries?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/