Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC v2 4/4] spec/vhost-user spec: Add IOMMU support

[Peter Xu]

On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 07:40:56PM +0200, Maxime Coquelin wrote:

[...]

> +IOMMU support
> +-------------
> +
> +When the VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM feature has been negotiated, the master has
> +to send IOTLB entries update & invalidation by sending VHOST_USER_IOTLB_MSG
> +requests to the slave with a struct vhost_iotlb_msg payload. For update 
> events,
> +the iotlb payload has to be filled with the update message type (2), the I/O
> +virtual address, the size, the user virtual address, and the permissions
> +flags. For invalidation events, the iotlb payload has to be filled with the
> +update message type (3), the I/O virtual address and the size. On success, 
> the

s/update/invalidate/ again?

> +slave is expected to reply with a zero payload, non-zero otherwise.
> +
> +When the VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_SLAVE_REQ is supported by the slave, and the
> +master initiated the slave to master communication channel using the
> +VHOST_USER_SET_SLAVE_REQ_FD request, the slave can send IOTLB miss and access
> +failure events by sending VHOST_USER_SLAVE_IOTLB_MSG requests to the master
> +with a struct vhost_iotlb_msg payload. For miss events, the iotlb payload has
> +to be filled with the miss message type (1), the I/O virtual address and the
> +permissions flags. For access failure event, the iotlb payload has to be
> +filled with the access failure message type (4), the I/O virtual address and
> +the permissions flags. For synchronization purpose, the slave may rely on the
> +reply-ack feature, so the master may send a reply when operation is completed
> +if the reply-ack feature is negotiated and slaves requests a reply.
> +
>  Slave communication
>  -------------------
>  
> @@ -512,6 +554,38 @@ Master message types
>        has been negotiated, and protocol feature bit 
> VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_SLAVE_REQ
>        bit is present in VHOST_USER_GET_PROTOCOL_FEATURES.
>  
> + * VHOST_USER_IOTLB_MSG
> +
> +      Id: 22
> +      Equivalent ioctl: N/A (equivalent to VHOST_IOTLB_MSG message type)
> +      Master payload: struct vhost_iotlb_msg
> +      Slave payload: u64
> +
> +      Send IOTLB messages with struct vhost_iotlb_msg as payload.
> +      Master sends such requests to update and invalidate entries in the 
> device
> +      IOTLB. The slave has to acknowledge the request with sending zero as 
> u64
> +      payload for success, non-zero otherwise.
> +      This request should be send only when VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM feature
> +      has been successfully negotiated.
> +
> +Slave message types
> +-------------------
> +
> + * VHOST_USER_SLAVE_IOTLB_MSG
> +
> +      Id: 1
> +      Equivalent ioctl: N/A (equivalent to VHOST_IOTLB_MSG message type)
> +      Slave payload: struct vhost_iotlb_msg
> +      Master payload: N/A

Master payload should be u64 due to REPLY_ACK?

A comment regarding to this whole patch - I see that there will be
lots of things in common between vhost-kernel and vhost-user iotlb
support at least in this patch. Would it be nice that we consider to
leverage shared codes with vhost-kernel? I see the most difference is
the channel (one using vhost fd, one using socket pair), but the
protocol and logic should merely the same after all. Not sure whether
we can just abstract the channel handling out of the logic (e.g., on
how to read/write to the channel, and how to deal with reply_ack).

Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu