Re: [PATCH v4 00/42] CXl 2.0 emulation Support

[Ben Widawsky]

On 22-01-25 11:18:08, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> Really awesome work Jonathan. Dan and I are wrapping up some of the kernel 
> bits,
> so all I'll do for now is try to run this, but I hope to be able to review the
> parts I'm familiar with at least.
> 
> On 22-01-24 17:16:23, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > Previous version was RFC v3: CXL 2.0 Support.
> > No longer an RFC as I would consider the vast majority of this
> > to be ready for detailed review. There are still questions called
> > out in some patches however.
> > 
> > Looking in particular for:
> > * Review of the PCI interactions
> > * x86 and ARM machine interactions (particularly the memory maps)
> > * Review of the interleaving approach - is the basic idea
> >   acceptable?
> > * Review of the command line interface.
> > * CXL related review welcome but much of that got reviewed
> >   in earlier versions and hasn't changed substantially.
> > 
> > Main changes:
> > * The CXL fixed memory windows are now instantiated via a
> >   -cxl-fixed-memory-window command line option.  As they are host level
> >   entities, not associated with a particular hardware entity a top
> >   level parameter seems the most natural way to describe them.
> >   This is also much closer to how it works on a real host than the
> >   previous assignment of a physical address window to all components
> >   along the CXL path.
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> > * Dynamic host memory physical address space allocation both for
> >   the CXL host bridge MMIO space and the CFMWS windows.
> 
> I thought I had done the host bridge MMIO, but perhaps I was mistaken. Either
> way, this is an important step to support all platforms more generally.
> 
> > * Interleaving support (based loosely on Philippe Mathieu-Daudé's
> >   earlier work on an interleaved memory device).  Note this is rudimentary
> >   and low performance but it may be sufficient for test purposes.
> 
> I'll have to look at this further. I had some thoughts about how we might make
> this fast, but it would be more of fake interleaving. How low is "low"?
> 
> > * Additional PCI and memory related utility functions needed for the
> >   interleaving.
> > * Various minor cleanup and increase in scope of tests.
> > * For now dropped the support for presenting CXL type 3 devices
> >   as memory devices in various QEMU interfaces.
> 
> What are the downsides to this? I only used the memory interface originally
> because it seemed like a natural fit, but looking back I'm not sure we gain
> much (though my memory is very lossy).
> 
> > * Dropped the patch letting UID be different from bus_nr.  Whilst
> >   it may be a useful thing to have, we don't need it for this series
> >   and so should be handled separately.
> > 
> > I've called out patches with major changes by marking them as
> > co-developed or introducing them as new patches. The original
> > memory window code has been dropped
> > 
> > After discussions at plumbers and more recently on the mailing list
> > it was clear that there was interest in getting emulation for CXL 2.0
> > upstream in QEMU.  This version resolves many of the outstanding issues
> > and enables the following features:
> > 
> > * Support on both x86/pc and ARM/virt with relevant ACPI tables
> >   generated in QEMU.
> > * Host bridge based on the existing PCI Expander Bridge PXB.
> > * CXL fixed memory windows, allowing host to describe interleaving
> >   across multiple CXL host bridges.
> > * pxb-cxl CXL host bridge support including MMIO region for control
> >   and HDM (Host manage device memory - basically interleaving / routing)
> >   decoder configuration.
> > * Basic CXL Root port support.
> > * CXL Type 3 device support with persistent memory regions (backed by
> >   hostmem backend).
> > * Pulled MAINTAINERS entry out to a separate patch and add myself as
> >   a co-maintainer at Ben's suggestion.
> > 
> > Big TODOs:
> > 
> > * Volatile memory devices (easy but it's more code so left for now).
> > * Switch support.
> > * Hotplug?  May not need much but it's not tested yet!
> > * More tests and tighter verification that values written to hardware
> >   are actually valid - stuff that real hardware would check.
> > * Main host bridge support (not a priority for me...)
> 
> I originally cared about this for the sake of making a system more realistic. 
> I
> now believe we should drop this entirely.
> 
> > * Testing, testing and more testing.  I have been running a basic
> >   set of ARM and x86 tests on this, but there is always room for
> >   more tests and greater automation.
> > 
> > Why do we want QEMU emulation of CXL?
> > 
> > As Ben stated in V3, QEMU support has been critical to getting OS
> > software written given lack of availability of hardware supporting the
> > latest CXL features (coupled with very high demand for support being
> > ready in a timely fashion). What has become clear since Ben's v3
> > is that situation is a continuous one.  Whilst we can't talk about
> > them yet, CXL 3.0 features and OS support have been prototyped on
> > top of this support and a lot of the ongoing kernel work is being
> > tested against these patches.
> > 
> > Other features on the qemu-list that build on these include PCI-DOE
> > /CDAT support from the Avery Design team further showing how this
> > code is useful.  Whilst not directly related this is also the test
> > platform for work on PCI IDE/CMA + related DMTF SPDM as CXL both
> > utilizes and extends those technologies and is likely to be an early
> > adopter.
> > Refs:
> > CMA Kernel: 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210804161839.3492053-1-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com/
> > CMA Qemu: 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/1624665723-5169-1-git-send-email-cbrowy@avery-design.com/
> > DOE Qemu: 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/1623329999-15662-1-git-send-email-cbrowy@avery-design.com/
> > 
> > 
> > As can be seen there is non trivial interaction with other areas of
> > Qemu, particularly PCI and keeping this set up to date is proving
> > a burden we'd rather do without :)
> > 
> > Ben mentioned a few other good reasons in v3:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/20210202005948.241655-1-ben.widawsky@intel.com/
> > 
> > The evolution of this series perhaps leave it in a less than
> > entirely obvious order and that may get tidied up in future postings.
> > I'm also open to this being considered in bite sized chunks.  What
> > we have here is about what you need for it to be useful for testing
> > currently kernel code.
> > 
> > All comments welcome.
> > 
> > Ben - I lifted one patch from your git tree that didn't have a
> > Sign-off.   hw/cxl/component Add a dumb HDM decoder handler
> > Could you confirm you are happy for one to be added?
> 
> Sure.
> 
> > 
> > Example of new command line (with virt ITS patches ;)
> > 
> > qemu-system-aarch64 -M virt,gic-version=3,cxl=on \
> >  -m 4g,maxmem=8G,slots=8 \
> >  ...
> >  -object 
> > memory-backend-file,id=cxl-mem1,share=on,mem-path=/tmp/cxltest.raw,size=256M,align=256M
> >  \
> >  -object 
> > memory-backend-file,id=cxl-mem2,share=on,mem-path=/tmp/cxltest2.raw,size=256M,align=256M
> >  \
> >  -object 
> > memory-backend-file,id=cxl-mem3,share=on,mem-path=/tmp/cxltest3.raw,size=256M,align=256M
> >  \
> >  -object 
> > memory-backend-file,id=cxl-mem4,share=on,mem-path=/tmp/cxltest4.raw,size=256M,align=256M
> >  \
> >  -object 
> > memory-backend-file,id=cxl-lsa1,share=on,mem-path=/tmp/lsa.raw,size=256M,align=256M
> >  \
> >  -object 
> > memory-backend-file,id=cxl-lsa2,share=on,mem-path=/tmp/lsa2.raw,size=256M,align=256M
> >  \
> >  -object 
> > memory-backend-file,id=cxl-lsa3,share=on,mem-path=/tmp/lsa3.raw,size=256M,align=256M
> >  \
> >  -object 
> > memory-backend-file,id=cxl-lsa4,share=on,mem-path=/tmp/lsa4.raw,size=256M,align=256M
> >  \
> 
> Is align actually necessary here?
> 
> >  -object memory-backend-file,id=tt,share=on,mem-path=/tmp/tt.raw,size=1g \
> 
> Did you mean to put this in there? Is it somehow used internally?
> 
> >  -device pxb-cxl,bus_nr=12,bus=pcie.0,id=cxl.1 \
> >  -device pxb-cxl,bus_nr=222,bus=pcie.0,id=cxl.2 \
> >  -device cxl-rp,port=0,bus=cxl.1,id=root_port13,chassis=0,slot=2 \
> >  -device 
> > cxl-type3,bus=root_port13,memdev=cxl-mem1,lsa=cxl-lsa1,id=cxl-pmem0,size=256M
> >  \
> >  -device cxl-rp,port=1,bus=cxl.1,id=root_port14,chassis=0,slot=3 \
> >  -device 
> > cxl-type3,bus=root_port14,memdev=cxl-mem2,lsa=cxl-lsa2,id=cxl-pmem1,size=256M
> >  \
> >  -device cxl-rp,port=0,bus=cxl.2,id=root_port15,chassis=0,slot=5 \
> >  -device 
> > cxl-type3,bus=root_port15,memdev=cxl-mem3,lsa=cxl-lsa3,id=cxl-pmem2,size=256M
> >  \
> >  -device cxl-rp,port=1,bus=cxl.2,id=root_port16,chassis=0,slot=6 \
> >  -device 
> > cxl-type3,bus=root_port16,memdev=cxl-mem4,lsa=cxl-lsa4,id=cxl-pmem3,size=256M
> >  \
> >  -cxl-fixed-memory-window targets=cxl.1,size=4G,interleave-granularity=8k \
> >  -cxl-fixed-memory-window 
> > targets=cxl.1,targets=cxl.2,size=4G,interleave-granularity=8k
> 
> I assume interleave-ways is based on the number of targets. For testing 
> purposes
> it might be nice to add the flags as well (perhaps it's there).
> 

This requires cxl=on machine arg now btw.

> > 
> > First CFMWS suitable for 2 way interleave, the second for 4 way (2 way
> > at host level and 2 way at the host bridge).
> > targets=<range of pxb-cxl uids> , multiple entries if range is disjoint.
> > 
> > With Ben's CXL region patches (v3 shortly) plus fixes as discussed on list,
> > Linux commands to bring up a 4 way interleave is:
> > 
> >  cd /sys/bus/cxl/devices/
> >  region=$(cat decoder0.1/create_region)
> >  echo $region  > decoder0.1/create_region
> >  ls -lh
> >  
> >  //Note the order of devices and adjust the following to make sure they
> >  //are in order across the 4 root ports.  Easy to do in a tool, but
> >  //not easy to paste in a cover letter.
> > 
> >  cd region0.1\:0
> >  echo 4 > interleave_ways
> >  echo mem2 > target0
> >  echo mem3 > target1
> >  echo mem0 > target2
> >  echo mem1 > target3
> >  echo $((1024<<20)) > size
> >  echo 4096 > interleave_granularity
> >  echo region0.1:0 > /sys/bus/cxl/drivers/cxl_region/bind
> > 
> > Tested with devmem2 and files with known content.
> > Kernel tree was based on previous version of the region patches
> > from Ben with various fixes. As Dan just posted an updated version
> > next job on my list is to test that.
> > 
> > Thanks to Shameer for his help with reviewing the new stuff before
> > posting.
> > 
> > I'll post a git tree shortly for any who prefer that to lots
> > of emails ;)
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Jonathan
> 
> Thanks again!
> Ben
> 
> [snip]
> 
>