[PATCH v1 1/6] backends/iommufd: Add a helper to invalidate user-managed HWPT

Zhenzhong Duan posted 6 patches 8 months, 2 weeks ago
Maintainers: Yi Liu <yi.l.liu@intel.com>, Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>, Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.duan@intel.com>, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>, Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>, "Clément Mathieu--Drif" <clement.mathieu--drif@eviden.com>, Marcel Apfelbaum <marcel.apfelbaum@gmail.com>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>, Eduardo Habkost <eduardo@habkost.net>, Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>, "Cédric Le Goater" <clg@redhat.com>
There is a newer version of this series
[PATCH v1 1/6] backends/iommufd: Add a helper to invalidate user-managed HWPT
Posted by Zhenzhong Duan 8 months, 2 weeks ago
This helper passes cache invalidation request from guest to invalidate
stage-1 page table cache in host hardware.

Signed-off-by: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.duan@intel.com>
---
 include/system/iommufd.h |  4 ++++
 backends/iommufd.c       | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 backends/trace-events    |  1 +
 3 files changed, 38 insertions(+)

diff --git a/include/system/iommufd.h b/include/system/iommufd.h
index cbab75bfbf..5399519626 100644
--- a/include/system/iommufd.h
+++ b/include/system/iommufd.h
@@ -61,6 +61,10 @@ bool iommufd_backend_get_dirty_bitmap(IOMMUFDBackend *be, uint32_t hwpt_id,
                                       uint64_t iova, ram_addr_t size,
                                       uint64_t page_size, uint64_t *data,
                                       Error **errp);
+bool iommufd_backend_invalidate_cache(IOMMUFDBackend *be, uint32_t id,
+                                      uint32_t data_type, uint32_t entry_len,
+                                      uint32_t *entry_num, void *data_ptr,
+                                      Error **errp);
 
 #define TYPE_HOST_IOMMU_DEVICE_IOMMUFD TYPE_HOST_IOMMU_DEVICE "-iommufd"
 #endif
diff --git a/backends/iommufd.c b/backends/iommufd.c
index b73f75cd0b..c8788a6438 100644
--- a/backends/iommufd.c
+++ b/backends/iommufd.c
@@ -311,6 +311,39 @@ bool iommufd_backend_get_device_info(IOMMUFDBackend *be, uint32_t devid,
     return true;
 }
 
+bool iommufd_backend_invalidate_cache(IOMMUFDBackend *be, uint32_t id,
+                                      uint32_t data_type, uint32_t entry_len,
+                                      uint32_t *entry_num, void *data_ptr,
+                                      Error **errp)
+{
+    int ret, fd = be->fd;
+    uint32_t total_entries = *entry_num;
+    struct iommu_hwpt_invalidate cache = {
+        .size = sizeof(cache),
+        .hwpt_id = id,
+        .data_type = data_type,
+        .entry_len = entry_len,
+        .entry_num = total_entries,
+        .data_uptr = (uintptr_t)data_ptr,
+    };
+
+    ret = ioctl(fd, IOMMU_HWPT_INVALIDATE, &cache);
+    trace_iommufd_backend_invalidate_cache(fd, id, data_type, entry_len,
+                                           total_entries, cache.entry_num,
+                                           (uintptr_t)data_ptr,
+                                           ret ? errno : 0);
+    if (ret) {
+        *entry_num = cache.entry_num;
+        error_setg_errno(errp, errno, "IOMMU_HWPT_INVALIDATE failed:"
+                         " totally %d entries, processed %d entries",
+                         total_entries, cache.entry_num);
+    } else {
+        g_assert(total_entries == cache.entry_num);
+    }
+
+    return !ret;
+}
+
 static int hiod_iommufd_get_cap(HostIOMMUDevice *hiod, int cap, Error **errp)
 {
     HostIOMMUDeviceCaps *caps = &hiod->caps;
diff --git a/backends/trace-events b/backends/trace-events
index 40811a3162..7278214ea5 100644
--- a/backends/trace-events
+++ b/backends/trace-events
@@ -18,3 +18,4 @@ iommufd_backend_alloc_hwpt(int iommufd, uint32_t dev_id, uint32_t pt_id, uint32_
 iommufd_backend_free_id(int iommufd, uint32_t id, int ret) " iommufd=%d id=%d (%d)"
 iommufd_backend_set_dirty(int iommufd, uint32_t hwpt_id, bool start, int ret) " iommufd=%d hwpt=%u enable=%d (%d)"
 iommufd_backend_get_dirty_bitmap(int iommufd, uint32_t hwpt_id, uint64_t iova, uint64_t size, uint64_t page_size, int ret) " iommufd=%d hwpt=%u iova=0x%"PRIx64" size=0x%"PRIx64" page_size=0x%"PRIx64" (%d)"
+iommufd_backend_invalidate_cache(int iommufd, uint32_t id, uint32_t data_type, uint32_t entry_len, uint32_t entry_num, uint32_t done_num, uint64_t data_ptr, int ret) " iommufd=%d id=%u data_type=%u entry_len=%u entry_num=%u done_num=%u data_ptr=0x%"PRIx64" (%d)"
-- 
2.34.1
Re: [PATCH v1 1/6] backends/iommufd: Add a helper to invalidate user-managed HWPT
Posted by Cédric Le Goater 8 months, 2 weeks ago
Hello Zhenzhong,

On 5/28/25 08:04, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:
> This helper passes cache invalidation request from guest to invalidate
> stage-1 page table cache in host hardware.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
> Signed-off-by: Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.duan@intel.com>
> ---
>   include/system/iommufd.h |  4 ++++
>   backends/iommufd.c       | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   backends/trace-events    |  1 +
>   3 files changed, 38 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/include/system/iommufd.h b/include/system/iommufd.h
> index cbab75bfbf..5399519626 100644
> --- a/include/system/iommufd.h
> +++ b/include/system/iommufd.h
> @@ -61,6 +61,10 @@ bool iommufd_backend_get_dirty_bitmap(IOMMUFDBackend *be, uint32_t hwpt_id,
>                                         uint64_t iova, ram_addr_t size,
>                                         uint64_t page_size, uint64_t *data,
>                                         Error **errp);
> +bool iommufd_backend_invalidate_cache(IOMMUFDBackend *be, uint32_t id,
> +                                      uint32_t data_type, uint32_t entry_len,
> +                                      uint32_t *entry_num, void *data_ptr,
> +                                      Error **errp);
>   
>   #define TYPE_HOST_IOMMU_DEVICE_IOMMUFD TYPE_HOST_IOMMU_DEVICE "-iommufd"
>   #endif
> diff --git a/backends/iommufd.c b/backends/iommufd.c
> index b73f75cd0b..c8788a6438 100644
> --- a/backends/iommufd.c
> +++ b/backends/iommufd.c
> @@ -311,6 +311,39 @@ bool iommufd_backend_get_device_info(IOMMUFDBackend *be, uint32_t devid,
>       return true;
>   }
>   
> +bool iommufd_backend_invalidate_cache(IOMMUFDBackend *be, uint32_t id,
> +                                      uint32_t data_type, uint32_t entry_len,
> +                                      uint32_t *entry_num, void *data_ptr,
> +                                      Error **errp)
> +{
> +    int ret, fd = be->fd;
> +    uint32_t total_entries = *entry_num;
> +    struct iommu_hwpt_invalidate cache = {
> +        .size = sizeof(cache),
> +        .hwpt_id = id,
> +        .data_type = data_type,
> +        .entry_len = entry_len,
> +        .entry_num = total_entries,
> +        .data_uptr = (uintptr_t)data_ptr,

Minor, other helpers use a 'data' variable name.

> +    };
> +
> +    ret = ioctl(fd, IOMMU_HWPT_INVALIDATE, &cache);
> +    trace_iommufd_backend_invalidate_cache(fd, id, data_type, entry_len,
> +                                           total_entries, cache.entry_num,
> +                                           (uintptr_t)data_ptr,
> +                                           ret ? errno : 0);
> +    if (ret) {
> +        *entry_num = cache.entry_num;
> +        error_setg_errno(errp, errno, "IOMMU_HWPT_INVALIDATE failed:"
> +                         " totally %d entries, processed %d entries",
> +                         total_entries, cache.entry_num);
> +    } else {
> +        g_assert(total_entries == cache.entry_num);

Killing the VMM because a kernel device ioctl failed is brute force.
Can't we update the 'Error *' parameter instead to report that the
invalidation is partial or something went wrong ?

What kind of errors are we trying to catch ?

Looking at the kernel iommufd_hwpt_invalidate() routine and
intel_nested_cache_invalidate_user(), it doesn't seem possible to
return a different number of cache entries. Are you anticipating
other implementations (sMMU) ?

Thanks,

C.
RE: [PATCH v1 1/6] backends/iommufd: Add a helper to invalidate user-managed HWPT
Posted by Duan, Zhenzhong 8 months, 2 weeks ago
Hi Cédric,

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Cédric Le Goater <clg@redhat.com>
>Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/6] backends/iommufd: Add a helper to invalidate user-
>managed HWPT
>
>Hello Zhenzhong,
>
>On 5/28/25 08:04, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:
>> This helper passes cache invalidation request from guest to invalidate
>> stage-1 page table cache in host hardware.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.duan@intel.com>
>> ---
>>   include/system/iommufd.h |  4 ++++
>>   backends/iommufd.c       | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   backends/trace-events    |  1 +
>>   3 files changed, 38 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/system/iommufd.h b/include/system/iommufd.h
>> index cbab75bfbf..5399519626 100644
>> --- a/include/system/iommufd.h
>> +++ b/include/system/iommufd.h
>> @@ -61,6 +61,10 @@ bool
>iommufd_backend_get_dirty_bitmap(IOMMUFDBackend *be, uint32_t hwpt_id,
>>                                         uint64_t iova, ram_addr_t size,
>>                                         uint64_t page_size, uint64_t *data,
>>                                         Error **errp);
>> +bool iommufd_backend_invalidate_cache(IOMMUFDBackend *be, uint32_t id,
>> +                                      uint32_t data_type, uint32_t entry_len,
>> +                                      uint32_t *entry_num, void *data_ptr,
>> +                                      Error **errp);
>>
>>   #define TYPE_HOST_IOMMU_DEVICE_IOMMUFD
>TYPE_HOST_IOMMU_DEVICE "-iommufd"
>>   #endif
>> diff --git a/backends/iommufd.c b/backends/iommufd.c
>> index b73f75cd0b..c8788a6438 100644
>> --- a/backends/iommufd.c
>> +++ b/backends/iommufd.c
>> @@ -311,6 +311,39 @@ bool
>iommufd_backend_get_device_info(IOMMUFDBackend *be, uint32_t devid,
>>       return true;
>>   }
>>
>> +bool iommufd_backend_invalidate_cache(IOMMUFDBackend *be, uint32_t id,
>> +                                      uint32_t data_type, uint32_t entry_len,
>> +                                      uint32_t *entry_num, void *data_ptr,
>> +                                      Error **errp)
>> +{
>> +    int ret, fd = be->fd;
>> +    uint32_t total_entries = *entry_num;
>> +    struct iommu_hwpt_invalidate cache = {
>> +        .size = sizeof(cache),
>> +        .hwpt_id = id,
>> +        .data_type = data_type,
>> +        .entry_len = entry_len,
>> +        .entry_num = total_entries,
>> +        .data_uptr = (uintptr_t)data_ptr,
>
>Minor, other helpers use a 'data' variable name.

Will do.

>
>> +    };
>> +
>> +    ret = ioctl(fd, IOMMU_HWPT_INVALIDATE, &cache);
>> +    trace_iommufd_backend_invalidate_cache(fd, id, data_type, entry_len,
>> +                                           total_entries, cache.entry_num,
>> +                                           (uintptr_t)data_ptr,
>> +                                           ret ? errno : 0);
>> +    if (ret) {
>> +        *entry_num = cache.entry_num;
>> +        error_setg_errno(errp, errno, "IOMMU_HWPT_INVALIDATE failed:"
>> +                         " totally %d entries, processed %d entries",
>> +                         total_entries, cache.entry_num);
>> +    } else {
>> +        g_assert(total_entries == cache.entry_num);
>
>Killing the VMM because a kernel device ioctl failed is brute force.
>Can't we update the 'Error *' parameter instead to report that the
>invalidation is partial or something went wrong ?

Will do, like below:

--- a/backends/iommufd.c
+++ b/backends/iommufd.c
@@ -339,7 +339,10 @@ bool iommufd_backend_invalidate_cache(IOMMUFDBackend *be, uint32_t id,
                          " totally %d entries, processed %d entries",
                          total_entries, cache.entry_num);
     } else {
-        g_assert(total_entries == cache.entry_num);
+        error_setg_errno(errp, -EFAULT, "IOMMU_HWPT_INVALIDATE succeed with unprocessed entries:"
+                         " totally %d entries, processed %d entries",
+                         total_entries, cache.entry_num);
+        ret = -EFAULT;
     }

     return !ret;

>
>What kind of errors are we trying to catch ?

I'm taking it as a kernel bug when ret = 0 and total_entries != cache.entry_num

>
>Looking at the kernel iommufd_hwpt_invalidate() routine and
>intel_nested_cache_invalidate_user(), it doesn't seem possible to
>return a different number of cache entries. Are you anticipating
>other implementations (sMMU) ?

Yes, same for sMMU's arm_vsmmu_cache_invalidate() and selftest's
mock_viommu_cache_invalidate() and mock_domain_cache_invalidate_user().

I'm not sure if this should apply to all types of IOMMUs, uAPI doc doesn't talk about it.

@Liu, Yi L, @nicolinc@nvidia.com, @Jason Gunthorpe, should I treat ret = 0 and total_entries != cache.entry_num as a kernel bug or not?

Thanks
Zhenzhong
Re: [PATCH v1 1/6] backends/iommufd: Add a helper to invalidate user-managed HWPT
Posted by Nicolin Chen 8 months, 2 weeks ago
On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 06:46:20AM +0000, Duan, Zhenzhong wrote:
> >Looking at the kernel iommufd_hwpt_invalidate() routine and
> >intel_nested_cache_invalidate_user(), it doesn't seem possible to
> >return a different number of cache entries. Are you anticipating
> >other implementations (sMMU) ?
> 
> Yes, same for sMMU's arm_vsmmu_cache_invalidate() and selftest's
> mock_viommu_cache_invalidate() and mock_domain_cache_invalidate_user().
> 
> I'm not sure if this should apply to all types of IOMMUs, uAPI doc doesn't talk about it.

It should. The uAPI defines that at entry_num:
 * struct iommu_hwpt_invalidate - ioctl(IOMMU_HWPT_INVALIDATE)
 ...
 * @entry_num: Input the number of cache invalidation requests in the array.
 *             Output the number of requests successfully handled by kernel.

This applies to either ret != 0 case too.

> @Liu, Yi L, @nicolinc@nvidia.com, @Jason Gunthorpe, should I treat ret = 0
> and total_entries != cache.entry_num as a kernel bug or not?

Selftest has that coverage, so it would be a kernel bug that will
unlikely occur. That being said, it doesn't hurt to do that IMHO.

Thanks
Nicolin