Re: [RFC PATCH] kvm: arm64: Try stage2 block mapping for host device MMIO

[Keqian Zhu <zhukeqian1@huawei.com>]

Hi Marc,

On 2021/3/12 16:52, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2021 14:28:17 +0000,
> Keqian Zhu <zhukeqian1@huawei.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Marc,
>>
>> On 2021/3/11 16:43, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> Digging this patch back from my Inbox...
>> Yeah, thanks ;-)
>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 08:36:50 +0000,
>>> Keqian Zhu <zhukeqian1@huawei.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The MMIO region of a device maybe huge (GB level), try to use block
>>>> mapping in stage2 to speedup both map and unmap.
[...]

>>>>  			break;
>>>>  
>>>> -		pa += PAGE_SIZE;
>>>> +		pa += pgsize;
>>>>  	}
>>>>  
>>>>  	kvm_mmu_free_memory_cache(&cache);
>>>
>>> There is one issue with this patch, which is that it only does half
>>> the job. A VM_PFNMAP VMA can definitely be faulted in dynamically, and
>>> in that case we force this to be a page mapping. This conflicts with
>>> what you are doing here.
>> Oh yes, these two paths should keep a same mapping logic.
>>
>> I try to search the "force_pte" and find out some discussion [1]
>> between you and Christoffer.  And I failed to get a reason about
>> forcing pte mapping for device MMIO region (expect that we want to
>> keep a same logic with the eager mapping path). So if you don't
>> object to it, I will try to implement block mapping for device MMIO
>> in user_mem_abort().
>>
>>>
>>> There is also the fact that if we can map things on demand, why are we
>>> still mapping these MMIO regions ahead of time?
>>
>> Indeed. Though this provides good *startup* performance for guest
>> accessing MMIO, it's hard to keep the two paths in sync. We can keep
>> this minor optimization or delete it to avoid hard maintenance,
>> which one do you prefer?
> 
> I think we should be able to get rid of the startup path. If we can do
> it for memory, I see no reason not to do it for MMIO.
OK, I will do.

> 
>> BTW, could you please have a look at my another patch series[2]
>> about HW/SW combined dirty log? ;)
> 
> I will eventually, but while I really appreciate your contributions in
> terms of features and bug fixes, I would really *love* it if you were
> a bit more active on the list when it comes to reviewing other
> people's code.
> 
> There is no shortage of patches that really need reviewing, and just
> pointing me in the direction of your favourite series doesn't really
> help. I have something like 200+ patches that need careful reviewing
> in my inbox, and they all deserve the same level of attention.
> 
> To make it short, help me to help you!
My apologies, and I can't agree more.

I have noticed this, and have reviewed several patches of IOMMU community.
For that some patches are with much background knowledge, so it's hard to
review. I will dig into them in the future.

Thanks for your valuable advice. :)

Thanks,
Keqian


> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	M.
>