[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 1/5] vfio: extend data structure for multi container

[Burakov, Anatoly]

On 15-Apr-18 4:33 PM, Xiao Wang wrote:
> Currently eal vfio framework binds vfio group fd to the default
> container fd during rte_vfio_setup_device, while in some cases,
> e.g. vDPA (vhost data path acceleration), we want to put vfio group
> to a separate container and program IOMMU via this container.
> 
> This patch extends the vfio_config structure to contain per-container
> user_mem_maps and defines an array of vfio_config. The next patch will
> base on this to add container API.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Junjie Chen <junjie.j.chen at intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Xiao Wang <xiao.w.wang at intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin at redhat.com>
> Reviewed-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>
> ---
>   config/common_base                     |   1 +
>   lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_vfio.c | 407 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>   lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_vfio.h |  19 +-
>   3 files changed, 275 insertions(+), 152 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/config/common_base b/config/common_base
> index c4236fd1f..4a76d2f14 100644
> --- a/config/common_base
> +++ b/config/common_base
> @@ -87,6 +87,7 @@ CONFIG_RTE_EAL_ALWAYS_PANIC_ON_ERROR=n
>   CONFIG_RTE_EAL_IGB_UIO=n
>   CONFIG_RTE_EAL_VFIO=n
>   CONFIG_RTE_MAX_VFIO_GROUPS=64
> +CONFIG_RTE_MAX_VFIO_CONTAINERS=64
>   CONFIG_RTE_MALLOC_DEBUG=n
>   CONFIG_RTE_EAL_NUMA_AWARE_HUGEPAGES=n
>   CONFIG_RTE_USE_LIBBSD=n
> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_vfio.c b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_vfio.c
> index 589d7d478..46fba2d8d 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_vfio.c
> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_vfio.c
> @@ -22,8 +22,46 @@
>   
>   #define VFIO_MEM_EVENT_CLB_NAME "vfio_mem_event_clb"
>   
> +/*
> + * we don't need to store device fd's anywhere since they can be obtained from
> + * the group fd via an ioctl() call.
> + */
> +struct vfio_group {
> +	int group_no;
> +	int fd;
> +	int devices;
> +};

What is the purpose of moving this into .c file? Seems like an 
unnecessary change.

> +
> +/* hot plug/unplug of VFIO groups may cause all DMA maps to be dropped. we can
> + * recreate the mappings for DPDK segments, but we cannot do so for memory that
> + * was registered by the user themselves, so we need to store the user mappings
> + * somewhere, to recreate them later.
> + */
> +#define VFIO_MAX_USER_MEM_MAPS 256
> +struct user_mem_map {
> +	uint64_t addr;
> +	uint64_t iova;
> +	uint64_t len;
> +};
> +

<...>

> +static struct vfio_config *
> +get_vfio_cfg_by_group_no(int iommu_group_no)
> +{
> +	struct vfio_config *vfio_cfg;
> +	int i, j;
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < VFIO_MAX_CONTAINERS; i++) {
> +		vfio_cfg = &vfio_cfgs[i];
> +		for (j = 0; j < VFIO_MAX_GROUPS; j++) {
> +			if (vfio_cfg->vfio_groups[j].group_no ==
> +					iommu_group_no)
> +				return vfio_cfg;
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	return default_vfio_cfg;

Here and in other places: i'm not sure returning default vfio config if 
group not found is such a good idea. It would be better if calling code 
explicitly handled case of group not existing yet.

> +}
> +
> +static struct vfio_config *
> +get_vfio_cfg_by_group_fd(int vfio_group_fd)
> +{
> +	struct vfio_config *vfio_cfg;
> +	int i, j;
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < VFIO_MAX_CONTAINERS; i++) {
> +		vfio_cfg = &vfio_cfgs[i];
> +		for (j = 0; j < VFIO_MAX_GROUPS; j++)
> +			if (vfio_cfg->vfio_groups[j].fd == vfio_group_fd)
> +				return vfio_cfg;
> +	}
>   

<...>

> -	for (i = 0; i < VFIO_MAX_GROUPS; i++) {
> -		vfio_cfg.vfio_groups[i].fd = -1;
> -		vfio_cfg.vfio_groups[i].group_no = -1;
> -		vfio_cfg.vfio_groups[i].devices = 0;
> +	rte_spinlock_recursive_t lock = RTE_SPINLOCK_RECURSIVE_INITIALIZER;
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < VFIO_MAX_CONTAINERS; i++) {
> +		vfio_cfgs[i].vfio_container_fd = -1;
> +		vfio_cfgs[i].vfio_active_groups = 0;
> +		vfio_cfgs[i].vfio_iommu_type = NULL;
> +		vfio_cfgs[i].mem_maps.lock = lock;

Nitpick - why copy, instead of straight up initializing with 
RTE_SPINLOCK_RECURSIVE_INITIALIZER?

> +
> +		for (j = 0; j < VFIO_MAX_GROUPS; j++) {
> +			vfio_cfgs[i].vfio_groups[j].fd = -1;
> +			vfio_cfgs[i].vfio_groups[j].group_no = -1;
> +			vfio_cfgs[i].vfio_groups[j].devices = 0;
> +		}
>   	}
>   
>   	/* inform the user that we are probing for VFIO */
> @@ -841,12 +971,12 @@ rte_vfio_enable(const char *modname)
>   		return 0;
>   	}

<...>

-- 
Thanks,
Anatoly