RE: [PATCH v5] vfio/type1: Adopt fast IOTLB flush interface when unmap IOVAs

[Tian, Kevin]

> From: Alex Williamson
> Sent: Friday, February 23, 2018 6:59 AM
> 
> On Thu,  1 Feb 2018 01:27:38 -0500
> Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > VFIO IOMMU type1 currently upmaps IOVA pages synchronously, which
> requires
> > IOTLB flushing for every unmapping. This results in large IOTLB flushing
> > overhead when handling pass-through devices has a large number of
> mapped
> > IOVAs. This can be avoided by using the new IOTLB flushing interface.
> >
> > Cc: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Joerg Roedel <joro@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >
> > Changes from v4 (https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/1/31/153)
> >  * Change return type from ssize_t back to size_t since we no longer
> >    changing IOMMU API. Also update error handling logic accordingly.
> >  * In unmap_unpin_fast(), also sync when failing to allocate entry.
> >  * Some code restructuring and variable renaming.
> >
> >  drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c | 128
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> >  1 file changed, 117 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> > index e30e29a..6041530 100644
> > --- a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> > +++ b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> > @@ -102,6 +102,13 @@ struct vfio_pfn {
> >  	atomic_t		ref_count;
> >  };
> >
> > +struct vfio_regions {
> > +	struct list_head list;
> > +	dma_addr_t iova;
> > +	phys_addr_t phys;
> > +	size_t len;
> > +};
> > +
> >  #define IS_IOMMU_CAP_DOMAIN_IN_CONTAINER(iommu)	\
> >  					(!list_empty(&iommu->domain_list))
> >
> > @@ -648,11 +655,102 @@ static int
> vfio_iommu_type1_unpin_pages(void *iommu_data,
> >  	return i > npage ? npage : (i > 0 ? i : -EINVAL);
> >  }
> >
> > +static long vfio_sync_unpin(struct vfio_dma *dma, struct vfio_domain
> *domain,
> > +				struct list_head *regions)
> > +{
> > +	long unlocked = 0;
> > +	struct vfio_regions *entry, *next;
> > +
> > +	iommu_tlb_sync(domain->domain);
> > +
> > +	list_for_each_entry_safe(entry, next, regions, list) {
> > +		unlocked += vfio_unpin_pages_remote(dma,
> > +						    entry->iova,
> > +						    entry->phys >>
> PAGE_SHIFT,
> > +						    entry->len >> PAGE_SHIFT,
> > +						    false);
> > +		list_del(&entry->list);
> > +		kfree(entry);
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	cond_resched();
> > +
> > +	return unlocked;
> > +}
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Generally, VFIO needs to unpin remote pages after each IOTLB flush.
> > + * Therefore, when using IOTLB flush sync interface, VFIO need to keep
> track
> > + * of these regions (currently using a list).
> > + *
> > + * This value specifies maximum number of regions for each IOTLB flush
> sync.
> > + */
> > +#define VFIO_IOMMU_TLB_SYNC_MAX		512
> > +
> > +static size_t unmap_unpin_fast(struct vfio_domain *domain,
> > +			       struct vfio_dma *dma, dma_addr_t *iova,
> > +			       size_t len, phys_addr_t phys, long *unlocked,
> > +			       struct list_head *unmapped_list,
> > +			       int *unmapped_cnt)
> > +{
> > +	size_t unmapped = 0;
> > +	struct vfio_regions *entry = kzalloc(sizeof(*entry), GFP_KERNEL);
> > +
> > +	if (entry) {
> > +		unmapped = iommu_unmap_fast(domain->domain, *iova,
> len);
> > +
> > +		if (!unmapped) {
> > +			kfree(entry);
> > +		} else {
> > +			iommu_tlb_range_add(domain->domain, *iova,
> unmapped);
> > +			entry->iova = *iova;
> > +			entry->phys = phys;
> > +			entry->len  = unmapped;
> > +			list_add_tail(&entry->list, unmapped_list);
> > +
> > +			*iova += unmapped;
> > +			(*unmapped_cnt)++;
> > +		}
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Sync if the number of fast-unmap regions hits the limit
> > +	 * or in case of errors.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (*unmapped_cnt >= VFIO_IOMMU_TLB_SYNC_MAX
> || !unmapped) {
> > +		*unlocked += vfio_sync_unpin(dma, domain,
> > +					     unmapped_list);
> > +		*unmapped_cnt = 0;
> > +	}

I'm not sure why returning ZERO is treated as only unmap error 
here, but if looking at __iommu_unmap clearly there are other
error codes returned also. I know it's not introduced by this
patch but Alex, was it deliberately implemented such way under 
any assumption or a typo?

Thanks
Kevin