Re: [PATCH] make vfio and DAX cache work together

[Dr. David Alan Gilbert]

* Alex Williamson (alex.williamson@redhat.com) wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2021 09:44:51 +0100
> "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > * Alex Williamson (alex.williamson@redhat.com) wrote:
> > > On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 20:17:23 +0100
> > > "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >   
> > > > * Dev Audsin (dev.devaqemu@gmail.com) wrote:  
> > > > > Thanks Dave for your explanation.
> > > > > Any suggestions on how to make VFIO not attempt to map into the
> > > > > unaccessible and unallocated RAM.    
> > > > 
> > > > I'm not sure;:
> > > > 
> > > > static bool vfio_listener_skipped_section(MemoryRegionSection *section)
> > > > {
> > > >     return (!memory_region_is_ram(section->mr) &&
> > > >             !memory_region_is_iommu(section->mr)) ||
> > > >            section->offset_within_address_space & (1ULL << 63);
> > > > }
> > > > 
> > > > I'm declaring that region with memory_region_init_ram_ptr;  should I be?
> > > > it's not quite like RAM.
> > > > But then I *do* want a kvm slot for it, and I do want it to be accessed
> > > > by mapping rather htan calling IO functions; that makes me think mr->ram
> > > > has to be true.
> > > > But then do we need to add another flag to memory-regions; if we do,
> > > > what is it;
> > > >    a) We don't want an 'is_virtio_fs' - it needs to be more generic
> > > >    b) 'no_vfio' also feels wrong
> > > > 
> > > > Is perhaps 'not_lockable' the right thing to call it?  
> > > 
> > > This reasoning just seems to lead back to "it doesn't work, therefore
> > > don't do it" rather than identifying the property of the region that
> > > makes it safe not to map it for device DMA (assuming that's actually
> > > the case).   
> > 
> > Yes, I'm struggling to get to what that generic form of that property
> > is, possibly because I've not got an example of another case to compare
> > it with.
> > 
> > > It's clearly "RAM" as far as QEMU is concerned given how
> > > it's created, but does it actually appear in the VM as generic physical
> > > RAM that the guest OS could program to the device as a DMA target?  If
> > > not, what property makes that so, create a flag for that.  Thanks,  
> > 
> > The guest sees it as a PCI-bar; so it knows it's not 'generic physical
> > RAM' - but can a guest set other BARs (like frame buffers or pmem) as
> > DMA targets?  If so, how do I distinguish our bar?
> 
> They can, this is how peer-to-peer DMA between devices works.  However,
> we can perhaps take advantage that drivers are generally a bit more
> cautious in probing that this type of DMA works before relying on it,
> and declare it with memory_region_init_ram_device_ptr() which vfio
> would not consider fatal if it fails to map it.  The other semantic
> difference is that ram_device_mem_ops are used for read/write access to
> avoid some of the opcodes that are not meant to be used for physical
> device memory with the default memcpy ops.  If you expect this region
> to be mapped as a kvm memory slot, presumably these would never get
> used anyway.  Thanks,

Oh, nice, I hadn't spotted memory_region_init_ram_device_ptr();

diff --git a/hw/virtio/vhost-user-fs.c b/hw/virtio/vhost-user-fs.c
index 7afd9495c9..11fb9b5979 100644
--- a/hw/virtio/vhost-user-fs.c
+++ b/hw/virtio/vhost-user-fs.c
@@ -604,7 +604,7 @@ static void vuf_device_realize(DeviceState *dev, Error 
**errp)
             return;
         }
 
-        memory_region_init_ram_ptr(&fs->cache, OBJECT(vdev),
+        memory_region_init_ram_device_ptr(&fs->cache, OBJECT(vdev),
                                    "virtio-fs-cache",
                                    fs->conf.cache_size, cache_ptr);
     }

apparently still works for us; Dev does that fix it for you?

Dave

> Alex
-- 
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilbert@redhat.com / Manchester, UK