[PATCH v2 2/2] vring: Force use of DMA API for ARM-based systems

[Will Deacon]

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 04:27:28PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 02:21:03PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 04:18:03PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:40:28AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 08:23:35PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 05:21:54PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 06:46:32PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 09:25:22AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:12:56AM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I'd rather people didn't use SMMU with legacy devices.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I'm afraid we've been doing that for two years and the model already
> > > > > > > > exists in a mature state, being actively used for development and
> > > > > > > > validation by ARM and our partners. One of the big things its used for
> > > > > > > > is to develop SMMU and GIC (our interrupt controller) code with PCI, so
> > > > > > > > dropping the SMMU from the picture isn't an option.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Oh so this fixes a regression?  This is something I didn't realize.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Yes, thanks. The regression came about because we implemented SMMU-backed
> > > > > > DMA ops and only then was it apparent that the virtio stuff was bypassing
> > > > > > even with translation enabled (because it wasn't using the DMA API).
> > > > > 
> > > > > Could you point out a commit ID?
> > > > 
> > > > There has been a fair amount of work in this area recently, but you're
> > > > probably after something like 876945dbf649 ("arm64: Hook up IOMMU dma_ops")
> > > > as the culprit, which is the point at which we started to swizzle DMA
> > > > ops for devices upstream of an SMMU automatically.
> > > > 
> > > > > > > A "Fixes:" tag can't hurt here.  I then wonder
> > > > > > > might DMA ops ever use a DMA address which isn't a physical address
> > > > > > > from QEMU point of view? If that happens, this hack breaks
> > > > > > > because in legacy mode QEMU still uses the GPA.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > If QEMU doesn't advertise an SMMU, then it will work fine with the GPA,
> > > > > > because we won't swizzle the DMA ops for the master device. If QEMU does
> > > > > > advertise an SMMU, then we'll allocate DMA addresses to fit within the
> > > > > > the intersection of the SMMU aperture and device's DMA mask.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Right but doesn't just poking from qemu into phys addresses work
> > > > > anymore? It used to ...
> > > > 
> > > > Provided that there's no SMMU, then it will continue to work. and my
> > > > understanding (from talking to Peter Maydell) is that qemu doesn't model
> > > > an SMMU for ARM-based machines.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > So how come people report failures due to presence of SMMU?
> > > Using some other hypervisor?
> > 
> > The failures are reported on the ARM fastmodel (a complete system
> > emulation that runs on an x86 box), where an SMMU *is* present
> > downstream of the virtio-pci masters. There's no qemu involved there.
> > 
> I see. And this hypervisor actually coded up looking up
> translations in the SMMU unconditionally for legacy devices,
> and this worked as long as guest didn't touch the SMMU?

Well, the fastmodel isn't a hypervisor really. It's a full system emulation,
so it's better to think of it like a piece of hardware. For example, you
could run KVM on the fastmodel. But yes, when Linux didn't swizzle the
DMA ops to point at the SMMU, then everything defaults to bypass (because
that's the default behaviour of the SMMU driver -- this is configurable
on the command line) which is why things used to work.

Will