| Message ID | 20231101131611.775299-1-mnissler@rivosinc.com |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | Support message-based DMA in vfio-user server | expand |
Hi Jonathan, To the best of my knowledge, all patches in the series have been thoroughly reviewed. Admittedly, I got a bit distracted with other things though, so I've been dragging my feet on follow-through. Sorry about that. I've just taken another look and found it no longer applies cleanly to master due to a minor merge conflict. I've just sent a rebased version to address that. Stefan, are you OK to pick this up for merging at your next convenience? Thanks, Mattias On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 6:39 PM Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> wrote: > On Wed, 1 Nov 2023 06:16:06 -0700 > Mattias Nissler <mnissler@rivosinc.com> wrote: > > > This series adds basic support for message-based DMA in qemu's vfio-user > > server. This is useful for cases where the client does not provide file > > descriptors for accessing system memory via memory mappings. My > motivating use > > case is to hook up device models as PCIe endpoints to a hardware design. > This > > works by bridging the PCIe transaction layer to vfio-user, and the > endpoint > > does not access memory directly, but sends memory requests TLPs to the > hardware > > design in order to perform DMA. > > > > Note that more work is needed to make message-based DMA work well: qemu > > currently breaks down DMA accesses into chunks of size 8 bytes at > maximum, each > > of which will be handled in a separate vfio-user DMA request message. > This is > > quite terrible for large DMA accesses, such as when nvme reads and writes > > page-sized blocks for example. Thus, I would like to improve qemu to be > able to > > perform larger accesses, at least for indirect memory regions. I have > something > > working locally, but since this will likely result in more involved > surgery and > > discussion, I am leaving this to be addressed in a separate patch. > > > Hi Mattias, > > I was wondering what the status of this patch set is - seems no > outstanding issues > have been raised? > > I'd run into a similar problem with multiple DMA mappings using the bounce > buffer > when using the emulated CXL memory with virtio-blk-pci accessing it. > > In that particular case virtio-blk is using the "memory" address space, but > otherwise your first 2 patches work for me as well so I'd definitely like > to see those get merged! > > Thanks, > > Jonathan > > > Changes from v1: > > > > * Address Stefan's review comments. In particular, enforce an allocation > limit > > and don't drop the map client callbacks given that map requests can > fail when > > hitting size limits. > > > > * libvfio-user version bump now included in the series. > > > > * Tested as well on big-endian s390x. This uncovered another byte order > issue > > in vfio-user server code that I've included a fix for. > > > > Changes from v2: > > > > * Add a preparatory patch to make bounce buffering an > AddressSpace-specific > > concept. > > > > * The total buffer size limit parameter is now per AdressSpace and can be > > configured for PCIDevice via a property. > > > > * Store a magic value in first bytes of bounce buffer struct as a best > effort > > measure to detect invalid pointers in address_space_unmap. > > > > Changes from v3: > > > > * libvfio-user now supports twin-socket mode which uses separate sockets > for > > client->server and server->client commands, respectively. This > addresses the > > concurrent command bug triggered by server->client DMA access > commands. See > > https://github.com/nutanix/libvfio-user/issues/279 for details. > > > > * Add missing teardown code in do_address_space_destroy. > > > > * Fix bounce buffer size bookkeeping race condition. > > > > * Generate unmap notification callbacks unconditionally. > > > > * Some cosmetic fixes. > > > > Changes from v4: > > > > * Fix accidentally dropped memory_region_unref, control flow restored to > match > > previous code to simplify review. > > > > * Some cosmetic fixes. > > > > Changes from v5: > > > > * Unregister indirect memory region in libvfio-user dma_unregister > callback. > > > > I believe all patches in the series have been reviewed appropriately, so > my > > hope is that this will be the final iteration. Stefan, Peter, Jag, > thanks for > > your feedback, let me know if there's anything else needed from my side > before > > this can get merged. > > > > Mattias Nissler (5): > > softmmu: Per-AddressSpace bounce buffering > > softmmu: Support concurrent bounce buffers > > Update subprojects/libvfio-user > > vfio-user: Message-based DMA support > > vfio-user: Fix config space access byte order > > > > hw/pci/pci.c | 8 ++ > > hw/remote/trace-events | 2 + > > hw/remote/vfio-user-obj.c | 104 +++++++++++++++++++++---- > > include/exec/cpu-common.h | 2 - > > include/exec/memory.h | 41 +++++++++- > > include/hw/pci/pci_device.h | 3 + > > subprojects/libvfio-user.wrap | 2 +- > > system/dma-helpers.c | 4 +- > > system/memory.c | 8 ++ > > system/physmem.c | 141 ++++++++++++++++++---------------- > > 10 files changed, 226 insertions(+), 89 deletions(-) > > > >
On Wed, Nov 01, 2023 at 06:16:06AM -0700, Mattias Nissler wrote:
> This series adds basic support for message-based DMA in qemu's vfio-user
Now qemu 9.0 is out, any reason not to get this series merged?
thanks
john
On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 03:57:25PM +0100, John Levon wrote: > On Wed, Nov 01, 2023 at 06:16:06AM -0700, Mattias Nissler wrote: > > > This series adds basic support for message-based DMA in qemu's vfio-user > > Now qemu 9.0 is out, any reason not to get this series merged? It looks like all patches are properly reviewed with at least 1 ACK, and it looks all reasonable and useful to me. I can send a pull for this one. I'll hold off until next Monday to wait for a final round of objections or comments. I hope everyone is in the loop. Btw, this is an old version, the target is v8. https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240304100554.1143763-1-mnissler@rivosinc.com Thanks,