lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jul]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 18/30] virtio_fs, dax: Set up virtio_fs dax_device
From
Date


On 22.07.19 12:56, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> * Christian Borntraeger (borntraeger@de.ibm.com) wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 18.07.19 16:30, Dan Williams wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 6:15 AM Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 07:27:25PM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 15 May 2019 15:27:03 -0400
>>>>> Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Setup a dax device.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Use the shm capability to find the cache entry and map it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The DAX window is accessed by the fs/dax.c infrastructure and must have
>>>>>> struct pages (at least on x86). Use devm_memremap_pages() to map the
>>>>>> DAX window PCI BAR and allocate struct page.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry for being this late. I don't see any more recent version so I will
>>>>> comment here.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm trying to figure out how is this supposed to work on s390. My concern
>>>>> is, that on s390 PCI memory needs to be accessed by special
>>>>> instructions. This is taken care of by the stuff defined in
>>>>> arch/s390/include/asm/io.h. E.g. we 'override' __raw_writew so it uses
>>>>> the appropriate s390 instruction. However if the code does not use the
>>>>> linux abstractions for accessing PCI memory, but assumes it can be
>>>>> accessed like RAM, we have a problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> Looking at this patch, it seems to me, that we might end up with exactly
>>>>> the case described. For example AFAICT copy_to_iter() (3) resolves to
>>>>> the function in lib/iov_iter.c which does not seem to cater for s390
>>>>> oddities.
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't have the time to investigate this properly, and since virtio-fs
>>>>> is virtual, we may be able to get around what is otherwise a
>>>>> limitation on s390. My understanding of these areas is admittedly
>>>>> shallow, and since I'm not sure I'll have much more time to
>>>>> invest in the near future I decided to raise concern.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any opinions?
>>>>
>>>> Hi Halil,
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand s390 and how PCI works there as well. Is there any
>>>> other transport we can use there to map IO memory directly and access
>>>> using DAX?
>>>>
>>>> BTW, is DAX supported for s390.
>>>>
>>>> I am also hoping somebody who knows better can chip in. Till that time,
>>>> we could still use virtio-fs on s390 without DAX.
>>>
>>> s390 has so-called "limited" dax support, see CONFIG_FS_DAX_LIMITED.
>>> In practice that means that support for PTE_DEVMAP is missing which
>>> means no get_user_pages() support for dax mappings. Effectively it's
>>> only useful for execute-in-place as operations like fork() and ptrace
>>> of dax mappings will fail.
>>
>>
>> This is only true for the dcssblk device driver (drivers/s390/block/dcssblk.c
>> and arch/s390/mm/extmem.c).
>>
>> For what its worth, the dcssblk looks to Linux like normal memory (just above the
>> previously detected memory) that can be used like normal memory. In previous time
>> we even had struct pages for this memory - this was removed long ago (when it was
>> still xip) to reduce the memory footprint for large dcss blocks and small memory
>> guests.
>> Can the CONFIG_FS_DAX_LIMITED go away if we have struct pages for that memory?
>>
>> Now some observations:
>> - dcssblk is z/VM only (not KVM)
>> - Setting CONFIG_FS_DAX_LIMITED globally as a Kconfig option depending on wether
>> a device driver is compiled in or not seems not flexible enough in case if you
>> have device driver that does have struct pages and another one that doesn't
>> - I do not see a reason why we should not be able to map anything from QEMU
>> into the guest real memory via an additional KVM memory slot.
>> We would need to handle that in the guest somehow (and not as a PCI bar),
>> register this with struct pages etc.
>> - we must then look how we can create the link between the guest memory and the
>> virtio-fs driver. For virtio-ccw we might be able to add a new ccw command or
>> whatever. Maybe we could also piggy-back on some memory hotplug work from David
>> Hildenbrand (add cc).
>>
>> Regarding limitations on the platform:
>> - while we do have PCI, the virtio devices are usually plugged via the ccw bus.
>> That implies no PCI bars. I assume you use those PCI bars only to implicitely
>> have the location of the shared memory
>> Correct?
>
> Right.

So in essence we just have to provide a vm_get_shm_region callback in the virtio-ccw
guest code?

How many regions do we have to support? One region per device? Or many?
Even if we need more, this should be possible with a 2 new CCWs, e.g READ_SHM_BASE(id)
and READ_SHM_SIZE(id)


>
>> - no real memory mapped I/O. Instead there are instructions that work on the mmio.
>> As I understand things, this is of no concern regarding virtio-fs as you do not
>> need mmio in the sense that a memory access of the guest to such an address
>> triggers an exit. You just need the shared memory as a mean to have the data
>> inside the guest. Any notification is done via normal virtqueue mechanisms
>> Correct?
>
> Yep.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-07-22 13:20    [W:0.064 / U:5.836 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site