mbox series

[V6,00/24] IOREQ feature (+ virtio-mmio) on Arm

Message ID 1611884932-1851-1-git-send-email-olekstysh@gmail.com (mailing list archive)
Headers show
Series IOREQ feature (+ virtio-mmio) on Arm | expand

Message

Oleksandr Jan. 29, 2021, 1:48 a.m. UTC
From: Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr_tyshchenko@epam.com>

Hello all.

The purpose of this patch series is to add IOREQ/DM support to Xen on Arm.
You can find an initial discussion at [1] and RFC-V5 series at [2]-[7].
Xen on Arm requires some implementation to forward guest MMIO access to a device
model in order to implement virtio-mmio backend or even mediator outside of hypervisor.
As Xen on x86 already contains required support this series tries to make it common
and introduce Arm specific bits plus some new functionality. Patch series is based on
Julien's PoC "xen/arm: Add support for Guest IO forwarding to a device emulator".
Besides splitting existing IOREQ/DM support and introducing Arm side, the series
also includes virtio-mmio related changes (last 2 patches for toolstack)
for the reviewers to be able to see how the whole picture could look like
and give it a try.

According to the initial/subsequent discussions there are a few open
questions/concerns regarding security, performance in VirtIO solution:
1. virtio-mmio vs virtio-pci, SPI vs MSI, or even a composition of virtio-mmio + MSI, 
   different use-cases require different transport...
2. virtio backend is able to access all guest memory, some kind of protection
   is needed: 'virtio-iommu in Xen' vs 'pre-shared-memory & memcpys in guest', etc
   (for these Alex have provided some input at [8])
3. interface between toolstack and 'out-of-qemu' virtio backend, avoid using
   Xenstore in virtio backend if possible. Also, there is a desire to make VirtIO
   backend hypervisor-agnostic.
4. a lot of 'foreing mapping' could lead to the memory exhaustion at the host side,
   as we are stealing the page from host memory in order to map the guest page.
   Julien has some idea regarding that.
5. Julien also has some ideas how to optimize the IOREQ code:
   5.1 vcpu_ioreq_handle_completion (former handle_hvm_io_completion) which is called in
       an hotpath on Arm (everytime we are re-entering to the guest):
       Ideally, vcpu_ioreq_handle_completion should be a NOP (at max a few instructions)
       if there is nothing to do (if we don't have I/O forwarded to an IOREQ server).
       Maybe we want to introduce a per-vCPU flag indicating if an I/O has been
       forwarded to an IOREQ server. This would allow us to bypass most of the function
       if there is nothing to do.
   5.2 The current way to handle MMIO is the following:
       - Pause the vCPU
       - Forward the access to the backend domain
       - Schedule the backend domain
       - Wait for the access to be handled
       - Unpause the vCPU
       The sequence is going to be fairly expensive on Xen.
       It might be possible to optimize the ACK and avoid to wait for the backend
       to handle the access.

Looks like all of them are valid and worth considering, but the first thing
which we need on Arm is a mechanism to forward guest IO to a device emulator,
so let's focus on it in the first place.

***

IMPORTANT NOTES:

1. Current patch series doesn't contain VirtIO related changes for the toolstack
(but they are still available at the GitHub repo [9]):
- libxl: Introduce basic virtio-mmio support on Arm
- [RFC] libxl: Add support for virtio-disk configuration
I decided to skip these patches for now since they require some rework (not Xen 4.15 materials),
I will resume pushing them once we get *common* IOREQ in.

2. There are two new patches (according to the recent discussion) which likely want Release-Ack:
- xen/ioreq: Do not let bufioreq to be used on other than x86 arches
- xen/ioreq: Make the IOREQ feature selectable on Arm
Also it feels to me that
- xen/dm: Introduce xendevicemodel_set_irq_level DM op
doesn't have all required Acks (at least for toolstack part).

3. I didn't manage to test patch-by-patch (in all possible modes for x86 and Arm)
for this version how I did for all previous versions (due to the limited time),
but I performed selective build-testing for patches touched and with the whole series
applied.

***

There are a lot of changes since RFC series, almost all TODOs were resolved on Arm,
Arm code was improved and hardened, common IOREQ/DM code became really arch-agnostic
(without HVM-ism), the "legacy" mechanism of mapping magic pages for the IOREQ servers
was left x86 specific, etc. But one TODO still remains which is "PIO handling" on Arm.
The "PIO handling" TODO is expected to left unaddressed for the current series.
It is not an big issue for now while Xen doesn't have support for vPCI on Arm.
On Arm64 they are only used for PCI IO Bar and we would probably want to expose
them to emulator as PIO access to make a DM completely arch-agnostic. So "PIO handling"
should be implemented when we add support for vPCI.

There are patches on review this series depends on (but it was agreed that this series
could go in without them):
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11816689
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11803383

Please note, that IOREQ feature is disabled by default on Arm within current series,
but there is a possibility to enable it via menuconfig.

***

Patch series [9] was rebased on recent "staging branch"
(6ca5101 x86/boot: Drop 'noapic' suggestion from check_timer()) and tested on
Renesas Salvator-X board + H3 ES3.0 SoC (Arm64) with virtio-mmio disk backend [10]
running in driver domain and unmodified Linux Guest running on existing
virtio-blk driver (frontend). No issues were observed. Guest domain 'reboot/destroy'
use-cases work properly. Patch series was only build-tested on x86.

Please note, build-test passed for the following modes:
1. x86: CONFIG_HVM=y / CONFIG_IOREQ_SERVER=y (default)
2. x86: #CONFIG_HVM is not set / #CONFIG_IOREQ_SERVER is not set
3. Arm64: CONFIG_HVM=y / CONFIG_IOREQ_SERVER=y
4. Arm64: CONFIG_HVM=y / #CONFIG_IOREQ_SERVER is not set  (default)
5. Arm32: CONFIG_HVM=y / CONFIG_IOREQ_SERVER=y
6. Arm32: CONFIG_HVM=y / #CONFIG_IOREQ_SERVER is not set  (default)

***

Any feedback/help would be highly appreciated.

[1] https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2020-07/msg00825.html
[2] https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2020-08/msg00071.html
[3] https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2020-09/msg00732.html
[4] https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2020-10/msg01077.html
[5] https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2020-11/msg02188.html
[6] https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2021-01/msg00749.html
[7] https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2021-01/msg01899.html
[8] https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2020-11/msg02212.html
[9] https://github.com/otyshchenko1/xen/commits/ioreq_4.14_ml7
[10] https://github.com/otyshchenko1/virtio-disk/commits/ioreq_ml2

Julien Grall (3):
  xen/ioreq: Make x86's IOREQ related dm-op handling common
  xen/mm: Make x86's XENMEM_resource_ioreq_server handling common
  arm/ioreq: Introduce arch specific bits for IOREQ/DM features

Oleksandr Tyshchenko (21):
  x86/ioreq: Prepare IOREQ feature for making it common
  x86/ioreq: Add IOREQ_STATUS_* #define-s and update code for moving
  x86/ioreq: Provide out-of-line wrapper for the handle_mmio()
  xen/ioreq: Make x86's IOREQ feature common
  xen/ioreq: Make x86's hvm_ioreq_needs_completion() common
  xen/ioreq: Make x86's hvm_mmio_first(last)_byte() common
  xen/ioreq: Make x86's hvm_ioreq_(page/vcpu/server) structs common
  xen/ioreq: Move x86's ioreq_server to struct domain
  xen/ioreq: Move x86's io_completion/io_req fields to struct vcpu
  xen/ioreq: Remove "hvm" prefixes from involved function names
  xen/ioreq: Use guest_cmpxchg64() instead of cmpxchg()
  xen/arm: Call vcpu_ioreq_handle_completion() in check_for_vcpu_work()
  xen/mm: Handle properly reference in set_foreign_p2m_entry() on Arm
  xen/ioreq: Introduce domain_has_ioreq_server()
  xen/dm: Introduce xendevicemodel_set_irq_level DM op
  xen/arm: io: Abstract sign-extension
  xen/arm: io: Harden sign extension check
  xen/ioreq: Make x86's send_invalidate_req() common
  xen/arm: Add mapcache invalidation handling
  xen/ioreq: Do not let bufioreq to be used on other than x86 arches
  xen/ioreq: Make the IOREQ feature selectable on Arm

 MAINTAINERS                                  |    9 +-
 tools/include/xendevicemodel.h               |    4 +
 tools/libs/devicemodel/core.c                |   18 +
 tools/libs/devicemodel/libxendevicemodel.map |    1 +
 xen/arch/arm/Makefile                        |    2 +
 xen/arch/arm/dm.c                            |  149 +++
 xen/arch/arm/domain.c                        |    9 +
 xen/arch/arm/io.c                            |   30 +-
 xen/arch/arm/ioreq.c                         |  196 ++++
 xen/arch/arm/p2m.c                           |   51 +-
 xen/arch/arm/traps.c                         |   55 +-
 xen/arch/x86/Kconfig                         |    2 +-
 xen/arch/x86/hvm/dm.c                        |  134 +--
 xen/arch/x86/hvm/emulate.c                   |  220 ++--
 xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c                       |   14 +-
 xen/arch/x86/hvm/hypercall.c                 |    9 +-
 xen/arch/x86/hvm/intercept.c                 |    5 +-
 xen/arch/x86/hvm/io.c                        |   52 +-
 xen/arch/x86/hvm/ioreq.c                     | 1368 ++----------------------
 xen/arch/x86/hvm/stdvga.c                    |   12 +-
 xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/nestedsvm.c             |    2 +-
 xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/realmode.c              |    8 +-
 xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vvmx.c                  |    5 +-
 xen/arch/x86/mm.c                            |   46 +-
 xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-ept.c                    |    1 +
 xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-pt.c                     |    1 +
 xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c                        |   17 +-
 xen/arch/x86/mm/shadow/common.c              |    2 +-
 xen/common/Kconfig                           |   12 +-
 xen/common/Makefile                          |    2 +
 xen/common/dm.c                              |   55 +
 xen/common/ioreq.c                           | 1429 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 xen/common/memory.c                          |   72 +-
 xen/include/asm-arm/domain.h                 |    2 +
 xen/include/asm-arm/ioreq.h                  |   70 ++
 xen/include/asm-arm/mmio.h                   |    1 +
 xen/include/asm-arm/p2m.h                    |   19 +-
 xen/include/asm-arm/traps.h                  |   25 +
 xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/domain.h             |   45 -
 xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/emulate.h            |    2 +-
 xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/io.h                 |   17 -
 xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/ioreq.h              |   39 +-
 xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/vcpu.h               |   18 -
 xen/include/asm-x86/ioreq.h                  |   39 +
 xen/include/asm-x86/mm.h                     |    4 -
 xen/include/asm-x86/p2m.h                    |   22 +-
 xen/include/public/hvm/dm_op.h               |   16 +
 xen/include/xen/dm.h                         |   44 +
 xen/include/xen/ioreq.h                      |  140 +++
 xen/include/xen/mm.h                         |    9 -
 xen/include/xen/p2m-common.h                 |    4 +
 xen/include/xen/sched.h                      |   34 +
 xen/include/xsm/dummy.h                      |    4 +-
 xen/include/xsm/xsm.h                        |    6 +-
 xen/xsm/dummy.c                              |    2 +-
 xen/xsm/flask/hooks.c                        |    5 +-
 56 files changed, 2722 insertions(+), 1837 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 xen/arch/arm/dm.c
 create mode 100644 xen/arch/arm/ioreq.c
 create mode 100644 xen/common/dm.c
 create mode 100644 xen/common/ioreq.c
 create mode 100644 xen/include/asm-arm/ioreq.h
 create mode 100644 xen/include/asm-x86/ioreq.h
 create mode 100644 xen/include/xen/dm.h
 create mode 100644 xen/include/xen/ioreq.h

Comments

Wei Chen Jan. 29, 2021, 8:13 a.m. UTC | #1
Hi Oleksandr,

I just tested the v6 and the latest backend service with the latest staging branch.
They work well. 

Tested-by: Wei Chen <Wei.Chen@arm.com>

Cheers,
Wei Chen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Oleksandr Tyshchenko <olekstysh@gmail.com>
> Sent: 2021年1月29日 9:48
> To: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
> Cc: Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr_tyshchenko@epam.com>; Paul Durrant
> <paul@xen.org>; Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>; Andrew Cooper
> <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>; Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@citrix.com>;
> Wei Liu <wl@xen.org>; Julien Grall <Julien.Grall@arm.com>; George Dunlap
> <george.dunlap@citrix.com>; Ian Jackson <iwj@xenproject.org>; Julien Grall
> <julien@xen.org>; Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>; Jun Nakajima
> <jun.nakajima@intel.com>; Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>; Tim Deegan
> <tim@xen.org>; Daniel De Graaf <dgdegra@tycho.nsa.gov>; Volodymyr
> Babchuk <Volodymyr_Babchuk@epam.com>; Bertrand Marquis
> <Bertrand.Marquis@arm.com>; Wei Chen <Wei.Chen@arm.com>; Kaly Xin
> <Kaly.Xin@arm.com>; Artem Mygaiev <joculator@gmail.com>; Alex Bennée
> <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
> Subject: [PATCH V6 00/24] IOREQ feature (+ virtio-mmio) on Arm
> 
> From: Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr_tyshchenko@epam.com>
> 
> Hello all.
> 
> The purpose of this patch series is to add IOREQ/DM support to Xen on Arm.
> You can find an initial discussion at [1] and RFC-V5 series at [2]-[7].
> Xen on Arm requires some implementation to forward guest MMIO access to a
> device
> model in order to implement virtio-mmio backend or even mediator outside of
> hypervisor.
> As Xen on x86 already contains required support this series tries to make it
> common
> and introduce Arm specific bits plus some new functionality. Patch series is
> based on
> Julien's PoC "xen/arm: Add support for Guest IO forwarding to a device
> emulator".
> Besides splitting existing IOREQ/DM support and introducing Arm side, the series
> also includes virtio-mmio related changes (last 2 patches for toolstack)
> for the reviewers to be able to see how the whole picture could look like
> and give it a try.
> 
> According to the initial/subsequent discussions there are a few open
> questions/concerns regarding security, performance in VirtIO solution:
> 1. virtio-mmio vs virtio-pci, SPI vs MSI, or even a composition of virtio-mmio +
> MSI,
>    different use-cases require different transport...
> 2. virtio backend is able to access all guest memory, some kind of protection
>    is needed: 'virtio-iommu in Xen' vs 'pre-shared-memory & memcpys in guest',
> etc
>    (for these Alex have provided some input at [8])
> 3. interface between toolstack and 'out-of-qemu' virtio backend, avoid using
>    Xenstore in virtio backend if possible. Also, there is a desire to make VirtIO
>    backend hypervisor-agnostic.
> 4. a lot of 'foreing mapping' could lead to the memory exhaustion at the host
> side,
>    as we are stealing the page from host memory in order to map the guest page.
>    Julien has some idea regarding that.
> 5. Julien also has some ideas how to optimize the IOREQ code:
>    5.1 vcpu_ioreq_handle_completion (former handle_hvm_io_completion)
> which is called in
>        an hotpath on Arm (everytime we are re-entering to the guest):
>        Ideally, vcpu_ioreq_handle_completion should be a NOP (at max a few
> instructions)
>        if there is nothing to do (if we don't have I/O forwarded to an IOREQ server).
>        Maybe we want to introduce a per-vCPU flag indicating if an I/O has been
>        forwarded to an IOREQ server. This would allow us to bypass most of the
> function
>        if there is nothing to do.
>    5.2 The current way to handle MMIO is the following:
>        - Pause the vCPU
>        - Forward the access to the backend domain
>        - Schedule the backend domain
>        - Wait for the access to be handled
>        - Unpause the vCPU
>        The sequence is going to be fairly expensive on Xen.
>        It might be possible to optimize the ACK and avoid to wait for the backend
>        to handle the access.
> 
> Looks like all of them are valid and worth considering, but the first thing
> which we need on Arm is a mechanism to forward guest IO to a device emulator,
> so let's focus on it in the first place.
> 
> ***
> 
> IMPORTANT NOTES:
> 
> 1. Current patch series doesn't contain VirtIO related changes for the toolstack
> (but they are still available at the GitHub repo [9]):
> - libxl: Introduce basic virtio-mmio support on Arm
> - [RFC] libxl: Add support for virtio-disk configuration
> I decided to skip these patches for now since they require some rework (not Xen
> 4.15 materials),
> I will resume pushing them once we get *common* IOREQ in.
> 
> 2. There are two new patches (according to the recent discussion) which likely
> want Release-Ack:
> - xen/ioreq: Do not let bufioreq to be used on other than x86 arches
> - xen/ioreq: Make the IOREQ feature selectable on Arm
> Also it feels to me that
> - xen/dm: Introduce xendevicemodel_set_irq_level DM op
> doesn't have all required Acks (at least for toolstack part).
> 
> 3. I didn't manage to test patch-by-patch (in all possible modes for x86 and Arm)
> for this version how I did for all previous versions (due to the limited time),
> but I performed selective build-testing for patches touched and with the whole
> series
> applied.
> 
> ***
> 
> There are a lot of changes since RFC series, almost all TODOs were resolved on
> Arm,
> Arm code was improved and hardened, common IOREQ/DM code became really
> arch-agnostic
> (without HVM-ism), the "legacy" mechanism of mapping magic pages for the
> IOREQ servers
> was left x86 specific, etc. But one TODO still remains which is "PIO handling" on
> Arm.
> The "PIO handling" TODO is expected to left unaddressed for the current series.
> It is not an big issue for now while Xen doesn't have support for vPCI on Arm.
> On Arm64 they are only used for PCI IO Bar and we would probably want to
> expose
> them to emulator as PIO access to make a DM completely arch-agnostic. So
> "PIO handling"
> should be implemented when we add support for vPCI.
> 
> There are patches on review this series depends on (but it was agreed that this
> series
> could go in without them):
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11816689
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11803383
> 
> Please note, that IOREQ feature is disabled by default on Arm within current
> series,
> but there is a possibility to enable it via menuconfig.
> 
> ***
> 
> Patch series [9] was rebased on recent "staging branch"
> (6ca5101 x86/boot: Drop 'noapic' suggestion from check_timer()) and tested on
> Renesas Salvator-X board + H3 ES3.0 SoC (Arm64) with virtio-mmio disk backend
> [10]
> running in driver domain and unmodified Linux Guest running on existing
> virtio-blk driver (frontend). No issues were observed. Guest domain
> 'reboot/destroy'
> use-cases work properly. Patch series was only build-tested on x86.
> 
> Please note, build-test passed for the following modes:
> 1. x86: CONFIG_HVM=y / CONFIG_IOREQ_SERVER=y (default)
> 2. x86: #CONFIG_HVM is not set / #CONFIG_IOREQ_SERVER is not set
> 3. Arm64: CONFIG_HVM=y / CONFIG_IOREQ_SERVER=y
> 4. Arm64: CONFIG_HVM=y / #CONFIG_IOREQ_SERVER is not set  (default)
> 5. Arm32: CONFIG_HVM=y / CONFIG_IOREQ_SERVER=y
> 6. Arm32: CONFIG_HVM=y / #CONFIG_IOREQ_SERVER is not set  (default)
> 
> ***
> 
> Any feedback/help would be highly appreciated.
> 
> [1] https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2020-
> 07/msg00825.html
> [2] https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2020-
> 08/msg00071.html
> [3] https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2020-
> 09/msg00732.html
> [4] https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2020-
> 10/msg01077.html
> [5] https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2020-
> 11/msg02188.html
> [6] https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2021-
> 01/msg00749.html
> [7] https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2021-
> 01/msg01899.html
> [8] https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2020-
> 11/msg02212.html
> [9] https://github.com/otyshchenko1/xen/commits/ioreq_4.14_ml7
> [10] https://github.com/otyshchenko1/virtio-disk/commits/ioreq_ml2
> 
> Julien Grall (3):
>   xen/ioreq: Make x86's IOREQ related dm-op handling common
>   xen/mm: Make x86's XENMEM_resource_ioreq_server handling common
>   arm/ioreq: Introduce arch specific bits for IOREQ/DM features
> 
> Oleksandr Tyshchenko (21):
>   x86/ioreq: Prepare IOREQ feature for making it common
>   x86/ioreq: Add IOREQ_STATUS_* #define-s and update code for moving
>   x86/ioreq: Provide out-of-line wrapper for the handle_mmio()
>   xen/ioreq: Make x86's IOREQ feature common
>   xen/ioreq: Make x86's hvm_ioreq_needs_completion() common
>   xen/ioreq: Make x86's hvm_mmio_first(last)_byte() common
>   xen/ioreq: Make x86's hvm_ioreq_(page/vcpu/server) structs common
>   xen/ioreq: Move x86's ioreq_server to struct domain
>   xen/ioreq: Move x86's io_completion/io_req fields to struct vcpu
>   xen/ioreq: Remove "hvm" prefixes from involved function names
>   xen/ioreq: Use guest_cmpxchg64() instead of cmpxchg()
>   xen/arm: Call vcpu_ioreq_handle_completion() in check_for_vcpu_work()
>   xen/mm: Handle properly reference in set_foreign_p2m_entry() on Arm
>   xen/ioreq: Introduce domain_has_ioreq_server()
>   xen/dm: Introduce xendevicemodel_set_irq_level DM op
>   xen/arm: io: Abstract sign-extension
>   xen/arm: io: Harden sign extension check
>   xen/ioreq: Make x86's send_invalidate_req() common
>   xen/arm: Add mapcache invalidation handling
>   xen/ioreq: Do not let bufioreq to be used on other than x86 arches
>   xen/ioreq: Make the IOREQ feature selectable on Arm
> 
>  MAINTAINERS                                  |    9 +-
>  tools/include/xendevicemodel.h               |    4 +
>  tools/libs/devicemodel/core.c                |   18 +
>  tools/libs/devicemodel/libxendevicemodel.map |    1 +
>  xen/arch/arm/Makefile                        |    2 +
>  xen/arch/arm/dm.c                            |  149 +++
>  xen/arch/arm/domain.c                        |    9 +
>  xen/arch/arm/io.c                            |   30 +-
>  xen/arch/arm/ioreq.c                         |  196 ++++
>  xen/arch/arm/p2m.c                           |   51 +-
>  xen/arch/arm/traps.c                         |   55 +-
>  xen/arch/x86/Kconfig                         |    2 +-
>  xen/arch/x86/hvm/dm.c                        |  134 +--
>  xen/arch/x86/hvm/emulate.c                   |  220 ++--
>  xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c                       |   14 +-
>  xen/arch/x86/hvm/hypercall.c                 |    9 +-
>  xen/arch/x86/hvm/intercept.c                 |    5 +-
>  xen/arch/x86/hvm/io.c                        |   52 +-
>  xen/arch/x86/hvm/ioreq.c                     | 1368 ++----------------------
>  xen/arch/x86/hvm/stdvga.c                    |   12 +-
>  xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/nestedsvm.c             |    2 +-
>  xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/realmode.c              |    8 +-
>  xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vvmx.c                  |    5 +-
>  xen/arch/x86/mm.c                            |   46 +-
>  xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-ept.c                    |    1 +
>  xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-pt.c                     |    1 +
>  xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c                        |   17 +-
>  xen/arch/x86/mm/shadow/common.c              |    2 +-
>  xen/common/Kconfig                           |   12 +-
>  xen/common/Makefile                          |    2 +
>  xen/common/dm.c                              |   55 +
>  xen/common/ioreq.c                           | 1429 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  xen/common/memory.c                          |   72 +-
>  xen/include/asm-arm/domain.h                 |    2 +
>  xen/include/asm-arm/ioreq.h                  |   70 ++
>  xen/include/asm-arm/mmio.h                   |    1 +
>  xen/include/asm-arm/p2m.h                    |   19 +-
>  xen/include/asm-arm/traps.h                  |   25 +
>  xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/domain.h             |   45 -
>  xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/emulate.h            |    2 +-
>  xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/io.h                 |   17 -
>  xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/ioreq.h              |   39 +-
>  xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/vcpu.h               |   18 -
>  xen/include/asm-x86/ioreq.h                  |   39 +
>  xen/include/asm-x86/mm.h                     |    4 -
>  xen/include/asm-x86/p2m.h                    |   22 +-
>  xen/include/public/hvm/dm_op.h               |   16 +
>  xen/include/xen/dm.h                         |   44 +
>  xen/include/xen/ioreq.h                      |  140 +++
>  xen/include/xen/mm.h                         |    9 -
>  xen/include/xen/p2m-common.h                 |    4 +
>  xen/include/xen/sched.h                      |   34 +
>  xen/include/xsm/dummy.h                      |    4 +-
>  xen/include/xsm/xsm.h                        |    6 +-
>  xen/xsm/dummy.c                              |    2 +-
>  xen/xsm/flask/hooks.c                        |    5 +-
>  56 files changed, 2722 insertions(+), 1837 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 xen/arch/arm/dm.c
>  create mode 100644 xen/arch/arm/ioreq.c
>  create mode 100644 xen/common/dm.c
>  create mode 100644 xen/common/ioreq.c
>  create mode 100644 xen/include/asm-arm/ioreq.h
>  create mode 100644 xen/include/asm-x86/ioreq.h
>  create mode 100644 xen/include/xen/dm.h
>  create mode 100644 xen/include/xen/ioreq.h
> 
> --
> 2.7.4
Jan Beulich Jan. 29, 2021, 8:49 a.m. UTC | #2
On 29.01.2021 09:13, Wei Chen wrote:
> I just tested the v6 and the latest backend service with the latest staging branch.
> They work well. 
> 
> Tested-by: Wei Chen <Wei.Chen@arm.com>

An faod this was again Arm-only testing?

Jan
Jan Beulich Jan. 29, 2021, 9:04 a.m. UTC | #3
On 29.01.2021 02:48, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote:
> Julien Grall (3):
>   xen/ioreq: Make x86's IOREQ related dm-op handling common
>   xen/mm: Make x86's XENMEM_resource_ioreq_server handling common
>   arm/ioreq: Introduce arch specific bits for IOREQ/DM features
> 
> Oleksandr Tyshchenko (21):
>   x86/ioreq: Prepare IOREQ feature for making it common
>   x86/ioreq: Add IOREQ_STATUS_* #define-s and update code for moving
>   x86/ioreq: Provide out-of-line wrapper for the handle_mmio()
>   xen/ioreq: Make x86's IOREQ feature common
>   xen/ioreq: Make x86's hvm_ioreq_needs_completion() common
>   xen/ioreq: Make x86's hvm_mmio_first(last)_byte() common
>   xen/ioreq: Make x86's hvm_ioreq_(page/vcpu/server) structs common
>   xen/ioreq: Move x86's ioreq_server to struct domain
>   xen/ioreq: Move x86's io_completion/io_req fields to struct vcpu
>   xen/ioreq: Remove "hvm" prefixes from involved function names
>   xen/ioreq: Use guest_cmpxchg64() instead of cmpxchg()
>   xen/arm: Call vcpu_ioreq_handle_completion() in check_for_vcpu_work()
>   xen/mm: Handle properly reference in set_foreign_p2m_entry() on Arm
>   xen/ioreq: Introduce domain_has_ioreq_server()
>   xen/dm: Introduce xendevicemodel_set_irq_level DM op

Going through the series I noticed that at least this one is still
lacking acks. I may have overlooked others. Do you have a clear
picture of which acks you still need to hunt for?

Jan
Julien Grall Jan. 29, 2021, 10:31 a.m. UTC | #4
Hi Jan,

On 29/01/2021 09:04, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 29.01.2021 02:48, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote:
>> Julien Grall (3):
>>    xen/ioreq: Make x86's IOREQ related dm-op handling common
>>    xen/mm: Make x86's XENMEM_resource_ioreq_server handling common
>>    arm/ioreq: Introduce arch specific bits for IOREQ/DM features
>>
>> Oleksandr Tyshchenko (21):
>>    x86/ioreq: Prepare IOREQ feature for making it common
>>    x86/ioreq: Add IOREQ_STATUS_* #define-s and update code for moving
>>    x86/ioreq: Provide out-of-line wrapper for the handle_mmio()
>>    xen/ioreq: Make x86's IOREQ feature common
>>    xen/ioreq: Make x86's hvm_ioreq_needs_completion() common
>>    xen/ioreq: Make x86's hvm_mmio_first(last)_byte() common
>>    xen/ioreq: Make x86's hvm_ioreq_(page/vcpu/server) structs common
>>    xen/ioreq: Move x86's ioreq_server to struct domain
>>    xen/ioreq: Move x86's io_completion/io_req fields to struct vcpu
>>    xen/ioreq: Remove "hvm" prefixes from involved function names
>>    xen/ioreq: Use guest_cmpxchg64() instead of cmpxchg()
>>    xen/arm: Call vcpu_ioreq_handle_completion() in check_for_vcpu_work()
>>    xen/mm: Handle properly reference in set_foreign_p2m_entry() on Arm
>>    xen/ioreq: Introduce domain_has_ioreq_server()
>>    xen/dm: Introduce xendevicemodel_set_irq_level DM op
> 
> Going through the series I noticed that at least this one is still
> lacking acks. I may have overlooked others. Do you have a clear
> picture of which acks you still need to hunt for?

I have pinged the tools maintainers to get an ack on the series.

I went through the rest of the series, everything else looks suitably acked.

Cheers,
Oleksandr Jan. 29, 2021, 10:38 a.m. UTC | #5
On 29.01.21 10:13, Wei Chen wrote:
> Hi Oleksandr,


Hi Wei


>
> I just tested the v6 and the latest backend service with the latest staging branch.
> They work well.
>
> Tested-by: Wei Chen <Wei.Chen@arm.com>

Thank you, I appreciate your help!



>
> Cheers,
> Wei Chen
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Oleksandr Tyshchenko <olekstysh@gmail.com>
>> Sent: 2021年1月29日 9:48
>> To: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
>> Cc: Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr_tyshchenko@epam.com>; Paul Durrant
>> <paul@xen.org>; Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>; Andrew Cooper
>> <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>; Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@citrix.com>;
>> Wei Liu <wl@xen.org>; Julien Grall <Julien.Grall@arm.com>; George Dunlap
>> <george.dunlap@citrix.com>; Ian Jackson <iwj@xenproject.org>; Julien Grall
>> <julien@xen.org>; Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>; Jun Nakajima
>> <jun.nakajima@intel.com>; Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>; Tim Deegan
>> <tim@xen.org>; Daniel De Graaf <dgdegra@tycho.nsa.gov>; Volodymyr
>> Babchuk <Volodymyr_Babchuk@epam.com>; Bertrand Marquis
>> <Bertrand.Marquis@arm.com>; Wei Chen <Wei.Chen@arm.com>; Kaly Xin
>> <Kaly.Xin@arm.com>; Artem Mygaiev <joculator@gmail.com>; Alex Bennée
>> <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
>> Subject: [PATCH V6 00/24] IOREQ feature (+ virtio-mmio) on Arm
>>
>> From: Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr_tyshchenko@epam.com>
>>
>> Hello all.
>>
>> The purpose of this patch series is to add IOREQ/DM support to Xen on Arm.
>> You can find an initial discussion at [1] and RFC-V5 series at [2]-[7].
>> Xen on Arm requires some implementation to forward guest MMIO access to a
>> device
>> model in order to implement virtio-mmio backend or even mediator outside of
>> hypervisor.
>> As Xen on x86 already contains required support this series tries to make it
>> common
>> and introduce Arm specific bits plus some new functionality. Patch series is
>> based on
>> Julien's PoC "xen/arm: Add support for Guest IO forwarding to a device
>> emulator".
>> Besides splitting existing IOREQ/DM support and introducing Arm side, the series
>> also includes virtio-mmio related changes (last 2 patches for toolstack)
>> for the reviewers to be able to see how the whole picture could look like
>> and give it a try.
>>
>> According to the initial/subsequent discussions there are a few open
>> questions/concerns regarding security, performance in VirtIO solution:
>> 1. virtio-mmio vs virtio-pci, SPI vs MSI, or even a composition of virtio-mmio +
>> MSI,
>>     different use-cases require different transport...
>> 2. virtio backend is able to access all guest memory, some kind of protection
>>     is needed: 'virtio-iommu in Xen' vs 'pre-shared-memory & memcpys in guest',
>> etc
>>     (for these Alex have provided some input at [8])
>> 3. interface between toolstack and 'out-of-qemu' virtio backend, avoid using
>>     Xenstore in virtio backend if possible. Also, there is a desire to make VirtIO
>>     backend hypervisor-agnostic.
>> 4. a lot of 'foreing mapping' could lead to the memory exhaustion at the host
>> side,
>>     as we are stealing the page from host memory in order to map the guest page.
>>     Julien has some idea regarding that.
>> 5. Julien also has some ideas how to optimize the IOREQ code:
>>     5.1 vcpu_ioreq_handle_completion (former handle_hvm_io_completion)
>> which is called in
>>         an hotpath on Arm (everytime we are re-entering to the guest):
>>         Ideally, vcpu_ioreq_handle_completion should be a NOP (at max a few
>> instructions)
>>         if there is nothing to do (if we don't have I/O forwarded to an IOREQ server).
>>         Maybe we want to introduce a per-vCPU flag indicating if an I/O has been
>>         forwarded to an IOREQ server. This would allow us to bypass most of the
>> function
>>         if there is nothing to do.
>>     5.2 The current way to handle MMIO is the following:
>>         - Pause the vCPU
>>         - Forward the access to the backend domain
>>         - Schedule the backend domain
>>         - Wait for the access to be handled
>>         - Unpause the vCPU
>>         The sequence is going to be fairly expensive on Xen.
>>         It might be possible to optimize the ACK and avoid to wait for the backend
>>         to handle the access.
>>
>> Looks like all of them are valid and worth considering, but the first thing
>> which we need on Arm is a mechanism to forward guest IO to a device emulator,
>> so let's focus on it in the first place.
>>
>> ***
>>
>> IMPORTANT NOTES:
>>
>> 1. Current patch series doesn't contain VirtIO related changes for the toolstack
>> (but they are still available at the GitHub repo [9]):
>> - libxl: Introduce basic virtio-mmio support on Arm
>> - [RFC] libxl: Add support for virtio-disk configuration
>> I decided to skip these patches for now since they require some rework (not Xen
>> 4.15 materials),
>> I will resume pushing them once we get *common* IOREQ in.
>>
>> 2. There are two new patches (according to the recent discussion) which likely
>> want Release-Ack:
>> - xen/ioreq: Do not let bufioreq to be used on other than x86 arches
>> - xen/ioreq: Make the IOREQ feature selectable on Arm
>> Also it feels to me that
>> - xen/dm: Introduce xendevicemodel_set_irq_level DM op
>> doesn't have all required Acks (at least for toolstack part).
>>
>> 3. I didn't manage to test patch-by-patch (in all possible modes for x86 and Arm)
>> for this version how I did for all previous versions (due to the limited time),
>> but I performed selective build-testing for patches touched and with the whole
>> series
>> applied.
>>
>> ***
>>
>> There are a lot of changes since RFC series, almost all TODOs were resolved on
>> Arm,
>> Arm code was improved and hardened, common IOREQ/DM code became really
>> arch-agnostic
>> (without HVM-ism), the "legacy" mechanism of mapping magic pages for the
>> IOREQ servers
>> was left x86 specific, etc. But one TODO still remains which is "PIO handling" on
>> Arm.
>> The "PIO handling" TODO is expected to left unaddressed for the current series.
>> It is not an big issue for now while Xen doesn't have support for vPCI on Arm.
>> On Arm64 they are only used for PCI IO Bar and we would probably want to
>> expose
>> them to emulator as PIO access to make a DM completely arch-agnostic. So
>> "PIO handling"
>> should be implemented when we add support for vPCI.
>>
>> There are patches on review this series depends on (but it was agreed that this
>> series
>> could go in without them):
>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11816689
>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11803383
>>
>> Please note, that IOREQ feature is disabled by default on Arm within current
>> series,
>> but there is a possibility to enable it via menuconfig.
>>
>> ***
>>
>> Patch series [9] was rebased on recent "staging branch"
>> (6ca5101 x86/boot: Drop 'noapic' suggestion from check_timer()) and tested on
>> Renesas Salvator-X board + H3 ES3.0 SoC (Arm64) with virtio-mmio disk backend
>> [10]
>> running in driver domain and unmodified Linux Guest running on existing
>> virtio-blk driver (frontend). No issues were observed. Guest domain
>> 'reboot/destroy'
>> use-cases work properly. Patch series was only build-tested on x86.
>>
>> Please note, build-test passed for the following modes:
>> 1. x86: CONFIG_HVM=y / CONFIG_IOREQ_SERVER=y (default)
>> 2. x86: #CONFIG_HVM is not set / #CONFIG_IOREQ_SERVER is not set
>> 3. Arm64: CONFIG_HVM=y / CONFIG_IOREQ_SERVER=y
>> 4. Arm64: CONFIG_HVM=y / #CONFIG_IOREQ_SERVER is not set  (default)
>> 5. Arm32: CONFIG_HVM=y / CONFIG_IOREQ_SERVER=y
>> 6. Arm32: CONFIG_HVM=y / #CONFIG_IOREQ_SERVER is not set  (default)
>>
>> ***
>>
>> Any feedback/help would be highly appreciated.
>>
>> [1] https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2020-
>> 07/msg00825.html
>> [2] https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2020-
>> 08/msg00071.html
>> [3] https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2020-
>> 09/msg00732.html
>> [4] https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2020-
>> 10/msg01077.html
>> [5] https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2020-
>> 11/msg02188.html
>> [6] https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2021-
>> 01/msg00749.html
>> [7] https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2021-
>> 01/msg01899.html
>> [8] https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2020-
>> 11/msg02212.html
>> [9] https://github.com/otyshchenko1/xen/commits/ioreq_4.14_ml7
>> [10] https://github.com/otyshchenko1/virtio-disk/commits/ioreq_ml2
>>
>> Julien Grall (3):
>>    xen/ioreq: Make x86's IOREQ related dm-op handling common
>>    xen/mm: Make x86's XENMEM_resource_ioreq_server handling common
>>    arm/ioreq: Introduce arch specific bits for IOREQ/DM features
>>
>> Oleksandr Tyshchenko (21):
>>    x86/ioreq: Prepare IOREQ feature for making it common
>>    x86/ioreq: Add IOREQ_STATUS_* #define-s and update code for moving
>>    x86/ioreq: Provide out-of-line wrapper for the handle_mmio()
>>    xen/ioreq: Make x86's IOREQ feature common
>>    xen/ioreq: Make x86's hvm_ioreq_needs_completion() common
>>    xen/ioreq: Make x86's hvm_mmio_first(last)_byte() common
>>    xen/ioreq: Make x86's hvm_ioreq_(page/vcpu/server) structs common
>>    xen/ioreq: Move x86's ioreq_server to struct domain
>>    xen/ioreq: Move x86's io_completion/io_req fields to struct vcpu
>>    xen/ioreq: Remove "hvm" prefixes from involved function names
>>    xen/ioreq: Use guest_cmpxchg64() instead of cmpxchg()
>>    xen/arm: Call vcpu_ioreq_handle_completion() in check_for_vcpu_work()
>>    xen/mm: Handle properly reference in set_foreign_p2m_entry() on Arm
>>    xen/ioreq: Introduce domain_has_ioreq_server()
>>    xen/dm: Introduce xendevicemodel_set_irq_level DM op
>>    xen/arm: io: Abstract sign-extension
>>    xen/arm: io: Harden sign extension check
>>    xen/ioreq: Make x86's send_invalidate_req() common
>>    xen/arm: Add mapcache invalidation handling
>>    xen/ioreq: Do not let bufioreq to be used on other than x86 arches
>>    xen/ioreq: Make the IOREQ feature selectable on Arm
>>
>>   MAINTAINERS                                  |    9 +-
>>   tools/include/xendevicemodel.h               |    4 +
>>   tools/libs/devicemodel/core.c                |   18 +
>>   tools/libs/devicemodel/libxendevicemodel.map |    1 +
>>   xen/arch/arm/Makefile                        |    2 +
>>   xen/arch/arm/dm.c                            |  149 +++
>>   xen/arch/arm/domain.c                        |    9 +
>>   xen/arch/arm/io.c                            |   30 +-
>>   xen/arch/arm/ioreq.c                         |  196 ++++
>>   xen/arch/arm/p2m.c                           |   51 +-
>>   xen/arch/arm/traps.c                         |   55 +-
>>   xen/arch/x86/Kconfig                         |    2 +-
>>   xen/arch/x86/hvm/dm.c                        |  134 +--
>>   xen/arch/x86/hvm/emulate.c                   |  220 ++--
>>   xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c                       |   14 +-
>>   xen/arch/x86/hvm/hypercall.c                 |    9 +-
>>   xen/arch/x86/hvm/intercept.c                 |    5 +-
>>   xen/arch/x86/hvm/io.c                        |   52 +-
>>   xen/arch/x86/hvm/ioreq.c                     | 1368 ++----------------------
>>   xen/arch/x86/hvm/stdvga.c                    |   12 +-
>>   xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/nestedsvm.c             |    2 +-
>>   xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/realmode.c              |    8 +-
>>   xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vvmx.c                  |    5 +-
>>   xen/arch/x86/mm.c                            |   46 +-
>>   xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-ept.c                    |    1 +
>>   xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-pt.c                     |    1 +
>>   xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c                        |   17 +-
>>   xen/arch/x86/mm/shadow/common.c              |    2 +-
>>   xen/common/Kconfig                           |   12 +-
>>   xen/common/Makefile                          |    2 +
>>   xen/common/dm.c                              |   55 +
>>   xen/common/ioreq.c                           | 1429 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   xen/common/memory.c                          |   72 +-
>>   xen/include/asm-arm/domain.h                 |    2 +
>>   xen/include/asm-arm/ioreq.h                  |   70 ++
>>   xen/include/asm-arm/mmio.h                   |    1 +
>>   xen/include/asm-arm/p2m.h                    |   19 +-
>>   xen/include/asm-arm/traps.h                  |   25 +
>>   xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/domain.h             |   45 -
>>   xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/emulate.h            |    2 +-
>>   xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/io.h                 |   17 -
>>   xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/ioreq.h              |   39 +-
>>   xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/vcpu.h               |   18 -
>>   xen/include/asm-x86/ioreq.h                  |   39 +
>>   xen/include/asm-x86/mm.h                     |    4 -
>>   xen/include/asm-x86/p2m.h                    |   22 +-
>>   xen/include/public/hvm/dm_op.h               |   16 +
>>   xen/include/xen/dm.h                         |   44 +
>>   xen/include/xen/ioreq.h                      |  140 +++
>>   xen/include/xen/mm.h                         |    9 -
>>   xen/include/xen/p2m-common.h                 |    4 +
>>   xen/include/xen/sched.h                      |   34 +
>>   xen/include/xsm/dummy.h                      |    4 +-
>>   xen/include/xsm/xsm.h                        |    6 +-
>>   xen/xsm/dummy.c                              |    2 +-
>>   xen/xsm/flask/hooks.c                        |    5 +-
>>   56 files changed, 2722 insertions(+), 1837 deletions(-)
>>   create mode 100644 xen/arch/arm/dm.c
>>   create mode 100644 xen/arch/arm/ioreq.c
>>   create mode 100644 xen/common/dm.c
>>   create mode 100644 xen/common/ioreq.c
>>   create mode 100644 xen/include/asm-arm/ioreq.h
>>   create mode 100644 xen/include/asm-x86/ioreq.h
>>   create mode 100644 xen/include/xen/dm.h
>>   create mode 100644 xen/include/xen/ioreq.h
>>
>> --
>> 2.7.4
Oleksandr Jan. 29, 2021, 10:51 a.m. UTC | #6
On 29.01.21 10:49, Jan Beulich wrote:

Hi Jan

> On 29.01.2021 09:13, Wei Chen wrote:
>> I just tested the v6 and the latest backend service with the latest staging branch.
>> They work well.
>>
>> Tested-by: Wei Chen <Wei.Chen@arm.com>
> An faod this was again Arm-only testing?
Yes, unfortunately I don't have a possibility to test on x86, if I had I 
would definitely perform testing.
I performed code analysis (the diff between V5 and V6 is small enough 
and these changes unlikely will add regression, so I was thinking that 
if basic x86 test passed on V5 (thanks to Julien) than it would likely 
pass on V6 as well),
but please don't get me wrong, I *completely* agree that even an obvious 
single patch must be tested.
Oleksandr Jan. 29, 2021, 11:06 a.m. UTC | #7
Hi Ian.

On 29.01.21 12:51, Oleksandr wrote:
>
> On 29.01.21 10:49, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> Hi Jan
>
>> On 29.01.2021 09:13, Wei Chen wrote:
>>> I just tested the v6 and the latest backend service with the latest 
>>> staging branch.
>>> They work well.
>>>
>>> Tested-by: Wei Chen <Wei.Chen@arm.com>
>> An faod this was again Arm-only testing?
> Yes, unfortunately I don't have a possibility to test on x86, if I had 
> I would definitely perform testing.
> I performed code analysis (the diff between V5 and V6 is small enough 
> and these changes unlikely will add regression, so I was thinking that 
> if basic x86 test passed on V5 (thanks to Julien) than it would likely 
> pass on V6 as well),
> but please don't get me wrong, I *completely* agree that even an 
> obvious single patch must be tested.
>
>
What worries me the most is:

 >>> Unfortunately, I don't have a Windows VM in hand, so I can't confirm if
 >>> there is no regression there. Can anyone give a try?

I am sorry, but would it be possible to make sure that current series 
doesn't break that use-case? Or this could be tested (and fixed if there 
is a need) after the feature freeze?
Julien Grall Jan. 29, 2021, 4:06 p.m. UTC | #8
Hi Oleksandr,

On 29/01/2021 11:06, Oleksandr wrote:
> On 29.01.21 12:51, Oleksandr wrote:
>>
>> On 29.01.21 10:49, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jan
>>
>>> On 29.01.2021 09:13, Wei Chen wrote:
>>>> I just tested the v6 and the latest backend service with the latest 
>>>> staging branch.
>>>> They work well.
>>>>
>>>> Tested-by: Wei Chen <Wei.Chen@arm.com>
>>> An faod this was again Arm-only testing?
>> Yes, unfortunately I don't have a possibility to test on x86, if I had 
>> I would definitely perform testing.
>> I performed code analysis (the diff between V5 and V6 is small enough 
>> and these changes unlikely will add regression, so I was thinking that 
>> if basic x86 test passed on V5 (thanks to Julien) than it would likely 
>> pass on V6 as well),
>> but please don't get me wrong, I *completely* agree that even an 
>> obvious single patch must be tested.
>>
>>
> What worries me the most is:
> 
>  >>> Unfortunately, I don't have a Windows VM in hand, so I can't 
> confirm if
>  >>> there is no regression there. Can anyone give a try?
> 
> I am sorry, but would it be possible to make sure that current series 
> doesn't break that use-case? Or this could be tested (and fixed if there 
> is a need) after the feature freeze?
With Ian's help, I used Osstest to run a Windows job with your branch 
(see [1]).

The branch used is rebase version because there was a building issue 
with Mini-OS on your baseline (it is already fixed upstream).

The result are the same as the latest run with staging (see [2]). So 
there is no regression with your series applied!

I will go through the series one last time and then commit it.

Cheers,

[1] http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/158785/
[2] 
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/158719/test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-win7-amd64/info.html


> 
>
Oleksandr Jan. 29, 2021, 4:22 p.m. UTC | #9
On 29.01.21 18:06, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Oleksandr,

Hi Julien, Ian



>
> On 29/01/2021 11:06, Oleksandr wrote:
>> On 29.01.21 12:51, Oleksandr wrote:
>>>
>>> On 29.01.21 10:49, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Jan
>>>
>>>> On 29.01.2021 09:13, Wei Chen wrote:
>>>>> I just tested the v6 and the latest backend service with the 
>>>>> latest staging branch.
>>>>> They work well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tested-by: Wei Chen <Wei.Chen@arm.com>
>>>> An faod this was again Arm-only testing?
>>> Yes, unfortunately I don't have a possibility to test on x86, if I 
>>> had I would definitely perform testing.
>>> I performed code analysis (the diff between V5 and V6 is small 
>>> enough and these changes unlikely will add regression, so I was 
>>> thinking that if basic x86 test passed on V5 (thanks to Julien) than 
>>> it would likely pass on V6 as well),
>>> but please don't get me wrong, I *completely* agree that even an 
>>> obvious single patch must be tested.
>>>
>>>
>> What worries me the most is:
>>
>>  >>> Unfortunately, I don't have a Windows VM in hand, so I can't 
>> confirm if
>>  >>> there is no regression there. Can anyone give a try?
>>
>> I am sorry, but would it be possible to make sure that current series 
>> doesn't break that use-case? Or this could be tested (and fixed if 
>> there is a need) after the feature freeze?
> With Ian's help, I used Osstest to run a Windows job with your branch 
> (see [1]).
>
> The branch used is rebase version because there was a building issue 
> with Mini-OS on your baseline (it is already fixed upstream).
>
> The result are the same as the latest run with staging (see [2]). So 
> there is no regression with your series applied!

Sounds great, thank you, I really appreciate your help!


>
> I will go through the series one last time and then commit it.

Thank you!


>
> Cheers,
>
> [1] http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/158785/
> [2] 
> http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/158719/test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-win7-amd64/info.html
>
>
>>
>>
>
Julien Grall Jan. 29, 2021, 5:01 p.m. UTC | #10
Hi Oleksandr,

On 29/01/2021 01:48, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote:
> Julien Grall (3):
>    xen/ioreq: Make x86's IOREQ related dm-op handling common
>    xen/mm: Make x86's XENMEM_resource_ioreq_server handling common
>    arm/ioreq: Introduce arch specific bits for IOREQ/DM features
> 
> Oleksandr Tyshchenko (21):
>    x86/ioreq: Prepare IOREQ feature for making it common
>    x86/ioreq: Add IOREQ_STATUS_* #define-s and update code for moving
>    x86/ioreq: Provide out-of-line wrapper for the handle_mmio()
>    xen/ioreq: Make x86's IOREQ feature common
>    xen/ioreq: Make x86's hvm_ioreq_needs_completion() common
>    xen/ioreq: Make x86's hvm_mmio_first(last)_byte() common
>    xen/ioreq: Make x86's hvm_ioreq_(page/vcpu/server) structs common
>    xen/ioreq: Move x86's ioreq_server to struct domain
>    xen/ioreq: Move x86's io_completion/io_req fields to struct vcpu
>    xen/ioreq: Remove "hvm" prefixes from involved function names
>    xen/ioreq: Use guest_cmpxchg64() instead of cmpxchg()
>    xen/arm: Call vcpu_ioreq_handle_completion() in check_for_vcpu_work()
>    xen/mm: Handle properly reference in set_foreign_p2m_entry() on Arm
>    xen/ioreq: Introduce domain_has_ioreq_server()
>    xen/dm: Introduce xendevicemodel_set_irq_level DM op
>    xen/arm: io: Abstract sign-extension
>    xen/arm: io: Harden sign extension check
>    xen/ioreq: Make x86's send_invalidate_req() common
>    xen/arm: Add mapcache invalidation handling
>    xen/ioreq: Do not let bufioreq to be used on other than x86 arches
>    xen/ioreq: Make the IOREQ feature selectable on Arm

I have used the v7 of the last and committed the series.

I am looking forward for the virtio support :).

Thanks for the hard work!

Cheers,
Oleksandr Jan. 29, 2021, 5:34 p.m. UTC | #11
On 29.01.21 19:01, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Oleksandr,


Hi Julien, all.


>
> On 29/01/2021 01:48, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote:
>> Julien Grall (3):
>>    xen/ioreq: Make x86's IOREQ related dm-op handling common
>>    xen/mm: Make x86's XENMEM_resource_ioreq_server handling common
>>    arm/ioreq: Introduce arch specific bits for IOREQ/DM features
>>
>> Oleksandr Tyshchenko (21):
>>    x86/ioreq: Prepare IOREQ feature for making it common
>>    x86/ioreq: Add IOREQ_STATUS_* #define-s and update code for moving
>>    x86/ioreq: Provide out-of-line wrapper for the handle_mmio()
>>    xen/ioreq: Make x86's IOREQ feature common
>>    xen/ioreq: Make x86's hvm_ioreq_needs_completion() common
>>    xen/ioreq: Make x86's hvm_mmio_first(last)_byte() common
>>    xen/ioreq: Make x86's hvm_ioreq_(page/vcpu/server) structs common
>>    xen/ioreq: Move x86's ioreq_server to struct domain
>>    xen/ioreq: Move x86's io_completion/io_req fields to struct vcpu
>>    xen/ioreq: Remove "hvm" prefixes from involved function names
>>    xen/ioreq: Use guest_cmpxchg64() instead of cmpxchg()
>>    xen/arm: Call vcpu_ioreq_handle_completion() in check_for_vcpu_work()
>>    xen/mm: Handle properly reference in set_foreign_p2m_entry() on Arm
>>    xen/ioreq: Introduce domain_has_ioreq_server()
>>    xen/dm: Introduce xendevicemodel_set_irq_level DM op
>>    xen/arm: io: Abstract sign-extension
>>    xen/arm: io: Harden sign extension check
>>    xen/ioreq: Make x86's send_invalidate_req() common
>>    xen/arm: Add mapcache invalidation handling
>>    xen/ioreq: Do not let bufioreq to be used on other than x86 arches
>>    xen/ioreq: Make the IOREQ feature selectable on Arm
>
> I have used the v7 of the last and committed the series.

Perfect!


>
>
> I am looking forward for the virtio support :).

ok)


>
>
> Thanks for the hard work!

Thank you to all of you for your *thorough* review and help!


>
> Cheers,
>