Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 08/11] eal: pci: introduce RTE_KDRV_VFIO_NOIOMMUi driver mode

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>]

2016-01-21 17:34, Santosh Shukla:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Thomas Monjalon
> <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> wrote:
> > 2016-01-21 16:43, Santosh Shukla:
> >> David Marchand <david.marchand@6wind.com> wrote:
> >> > This is a mode (specific to vfio), not a new kernel driver.
> >> >
> >> Yes, Specific to VFIO and this is why noiommu appended after vfio i.e..
> >> __VFIO and __VFIO_NOIOMMU.
> >
> > Woaaa! Your logic is really disappointing :)
> > Specific to VFIO => append _NOIOMMU
> > If it's for VFIO, it should be called VFIO (that's my logic).
> >
> I am confused by reading your comment. vfio works for default iommu
> and now with noiommu. drv->kdrv need to know driver mode for vfio
> case. So that user can simply read drv->kdrv value in their driver and
> accordingly use vfio rd/wr api for example {pread/pwrite}. This is how
> rte_eal_pci_vfio_read/write_bar() api implemented.

Sorry I don't understand. Why EAL read/write functions should be different
depending of the VFIO mode?

> And Yes it is called VFIO but with with specifics appended in it.
> 
> >> > How come we need to distinguish between with/without iommu modes ?
> >>
> >> By default vfio framework assumes iommu i.,e., iommu present. Unless user
> >> explicitly set "enable_unsafe_noiommu_mode" param. so in my opinion, we
> >> care to parse vfio driver for _noiommu_ mode only.
> >
> > Why do we care to parse noiommu only?
> 
> Because pmd drivers example virtio can work with vfio only in
> _noiommu_ mode. In particular, virtio spec 0.95 / legacy virtio.

Please could you explain the limitation (except IOMMU availability)?

> So at
> the initialization (example .. virtio-net) of such pmd driver, pmd
> driver should know that vfio-with-noiommu mode enabled or not? for
> that pmd driver simply checks drv->kdrv value.

If a check is needed, I would prefer using your function
pci_vfio_is_noiommu() and remove driver modes from struct rte_kernel_driver.

> Currently virtio-net
> pmd driver does resource parsing then resource init for interfaces
> like UIO/ioport, I intend to do same but only parsing, as resource
> init for vfio case already taken care by pci_xx_vfio_map() api in
> virtio-net pmd driver (refer Yaun recently virtio 1.0 recently
> submitted rte_eal_pci_map patch)
> 
> Also Yuan in one of earlier thread inclined to remove all the resource
> parsing api from virtio-net pmd driver. Pl. refer this thread [1]
> 
> [1] http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/9862/

Yes he said
"we should try to avoid getting UIO/VFIO stuff inside virtio pmd driver".
I agree we must try to have those abstractions in EAL.
The only exception seems to be the switch ioport/PCI bar to read/write
in virtio.

> > Even if virtio cannot work in an IOMMU case, there is no reason to add
> > a VFIO_NOIOMMU type here.
> >
> >> > Should not vfio behave the same way from an api point of view ?
> >> >
> >> Yes It should. vfio gives similar file_ops i.e.. read/write/mmap/seek etc..
> >> I am little confused on your question, do you see any issue in vfio bar
> >> rd/wr api implementation?
> >
> > I think you should just consider the VFIO API and let the noiommu option
> > as a kernel configuration detail.
> 
> vfio apis _are_ considered at low level rd/wr implementation, Has
> nothing to do with iommu/noiommu mode. See pci_vfio_read/write_bar()
> implementation, they are using pread64/pwrite64() vfio rd/wr api.

So you agree that the VFIO API abstract the iommu availability details?