android_kernel_motorola_sm6225/drivers/pci/dmar.c

763 lines
17 KiB
C
Raw Normal View History

Intel IOMMU: DMAR detection and parsing logic This patch supports the upcomming Intel IOMMU hardware a.k.a. Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture and the hardware spec for the same can be found here http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm FAQ! (questions from akpm, answers from ak) > So... what's all this code for? > > I assume that the intent here is to speed things up under Xen, etc? Yes in some cases, but not this code. That would be the Xen version of this code that could potentially assign whole devices to guests. I expect this to be only useful in some special cases though because most hardware is not virtualizable and you typically want an own instance for each guest. Ok at some point KVM might implement this too; i likely would use this code for this. > Do we > have any benchmark results to help us to decide whether a merge would be > justified? The main advantage for doing it in the normal kernel is not performance, but more safety. Broken devices won't be able to corrupt memory by doing random DMA. Unfortunately that doesn't work for graphics yet, for that need user space interfaces for the X server are needed. There are some potential performance benefits too: - When you have a device that cannot address the complete address range an IOMMU can remap its memory instead of bounce buffering. Remapping is likely cheaper than copying. - The IOMMU can merge sg lists into a single virtual block. This could potentially speed up SG IO when the device is slow walking SG lists. [I long ago benchmarked 5% on some block benchmark with an old MPT Fusion; but it probably depends a lot on the HBA] And you get better driver debugging because unexpected memory accesses from the devices will cause a trappable event. > > Does it slow anything down? It adds more overhead to each IO so yes. This patch: Add support for early detection and parsing of DMAR's (DMA Remapping) reported to OS via ACPI tables. DMA remapping(DMAR) devices support enables independent address translations for Direct Memory Access(DMA) from Devices. These DMA remapping devices are reported via ACPI tables and includes pci device scope covered by these DMA remapping device. For detailed info on the specification of "Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture" please see http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm Signed-off-by: Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Cc: Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@il.ibm.com> Cc: "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> Cc: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> Cc: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> Cc: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2007-10-22 01:41:41 +02:00
/*
* Copyright (c) 2006, Intel Corporation.
*
* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
* under the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License,
* version 2, as published by the Free Software Foundation.
*
* This program is distributed in the hope it will be useful, but WITHOUT
* ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or
* FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for
* more details.
*
* You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with
* this program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple
* Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA.
*
* Copyright (C) 2006-2008 Intel Corporation
* Author: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>
* Author: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>
* Author: Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com>
Intel IOMMU: DMAR detection and parsing logic This patch supports the upcomming Intel IOMMU hardware a.k.a. Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture and the hardware spec for the same can be found here http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm FAQ! (questions from akpm, answers from ak) > So... what's all this code for? > > I assume that the intent here is to speed things up under Xen, etc? Yes in some cases, but not this code. That would be the Xen version of this code that could potentially assign whole devices to guests. I expect this to be only useful in some special cases though because most hardware is not virtualizable and you typically want an own instance for each guest. Ok at some point KVM might implement this too; i likely would use this code for this. > Do we > have any benchmark results to help us to decide whether a merge would be > justified? The main advantage for doing it in the normal kernel is not performance, but more safety. Broken devices won't be able to corrupt memory by doing random DMA. Unfortunately that doesn't work for graphics yet, for that need user space interfaces for the X server are needed. There are some potential performance benefits too: - When you have a device that cannot address the complete address range an IOMMU can remap its memory instead of bounce buffering. Remapping is likely cheaper than copying. - The IOMMU can merge sg lists into a single virtual block. This could potentially speed up SG IO when the device is slow walking SG lists. [I long ago benchmarked 5% on some block benchmark with an old MPT Fusion; but it probably depends a lot on the HBA] And you get better driver debugging because unexpected memory accesses from the devices will cause a trappable event. > > Does it slow anything down? It adds more overhead to each IO so yes. This patch: Add support for early detection and parsing of DMAR's (DMA Remapping) reported to OS via ACPI tables. DMA remapping(DMAR) devices support enables independent address translations for Direct Memory Access(DMA) from Devices. These DMA remapping devices are reported via ACPI tables and includes pci device scope covered by these DMA remapping device. For detailed info on the specification of "Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture" please see http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm Signed-off-by: Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Cc: Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@il.ibm.com> Cc: "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> Cc: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> Cc: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> Cc: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2007-10-22 01:41:41 +02:00
*
* This file implements early detection/parsing of Remapping Devices
Intel IOMMU: DMAR detection and parsing logic This patch supports the upcomming Intel IOMMU hardware a.k.a. Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture and the hardware spec for the same can be found here http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm FAQ! (questions from akpm, answers from ak) > So... what's all this code for? > > I assume that the intent here is to speed things up under Xen, etc? Yes in some cases, but not this code. That would be the Xen version of this code that could potentially assign whole devices to guests. I expect this to be only useful in some special cases though because most hardware is not virtualizable and you typically want an own instance for each guest. Ok at some point KVM might implement this too; i likely would use this code for this. > Do we > have any benchmark results to help us to decide whether a merge would be > justified? The main advantage for doing it in the normal kernel is not performance, but more safety. Broken devices won't be able to corrupt memory by doing random DMA. Unfortunately that doesn't work for graphics yet, for that need user space interfaces for the X server are needed. There are some potential performance benefits too: - When you have a device that cannot address the complete address range an IOMMU can remap its memory instead of bounce buffering. Remapping is likely cheaper than copying. - The IOMMU can merge sg lists into a single virtual block. This could potentially speed up SG IO when the device is slow walking SG lists. [I long ago benchmarked 5% on some block benchmark with an old MPT Fusion; but it probably depends a lot on the HBA] And you get better driver debugging because unexpected memory accesses from the devices will cause a trappable event. > > Does it slow anything down? It adds more overhead to each IO so yes. This patch: Add support for early detection and parsing of DMAR's (DMA Remapping) reported to OS via ACPI tables. DMA remapping(DMAR) devices support enables independent address translations for Direct Memory Access(DMA) from Devices. These DMA remapping devices are reported via ACPI tables and includes pci device scope covered by these DMA remapping device. For detailed info on the specification of "Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture" please see http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm Signed-off-by: Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Cc: Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@il.ibm.com> Cc: "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> Cc: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> Cc: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> Cc: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2007-10-22 01:41:41 +02:00
* reported to OS through BIOS via DMA remapping reporting (DMAR) ACPI
* tables.
*
* These routines are used by both DMA-remapping and Interrupt-remapping
Intel IOMMU: DMAR detection and parsing logic This patch supports the upcomming Intel IOMMU hardware a.k.a. Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture and the hardware spec for the same can be found here http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm FAQ! (questions from akpm, answers from ak) > So... what's all this code for? > > I assume that the intent here is to speed things up under Xen, etc? Yes in some cases, but not this code. That would be the Xen version of this code that could potentially assign whole devices to guests. I expect this to be only useful in some special cases though because most hardware is not virtualizable and you typically want an own instance for each guest. Ok at some point KVM might implement this too; i likely would use this code for this. > Do we > have any benchmark results to help us to decide whether a merge would be > justified? The main advantage for doing it in the normal kernel is not performance, but more safety. Broken devices won't be able to corrupt memory by doing random DMA. Unfortunately that doesn't work for graphics yet, for that need user space interfaces for the X server are needed. There are some potential performance benefits too: - When you have a device that cannot address the complete address range an IOMMU can remap its memory instead of bounce buffering. Remapping is likely cheaper than copying. - The IOMMU can merge sg lists into a single virtual block. This could potentially speed up SG IO when the device is slow walking SG lists. [I long ago benchmarked 5% on some block benchmark with an old MPT Fusion; but it probably depends a lot on the HBA] And you get better driver debugging because unexpected memory accesses from the devices will cause a trappable event. > > Does it slow anything down? It adds more overhead to each IO so yes. This patch: Add support for early detection and parsing of DMAR's (DMA Remapping) reported to OS via ACPI tables. DMA remapping(DMAR) devices support enables independent address translations for Direct Memory Access(DMA) from Devices. These DMA remapping devices are reported via ACPI tables and includes pci device scope covered by these DMA remapping device. For detailed info on the specification of "Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture" please see http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm Signed-off-by: Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Cc: Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@il.ibm.com> Cc: "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> Cc: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> Cc: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> Cc: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2007-10-22 01:41:41 +02:00
*/
#include <linux/pci.h>
#include <linux/dmar.h>
#include <linux/iova.h>
#include <linux/intel-iommu.h>
#include <linux/timer.h>
Intel IOMMU: DMAR detection and parsing logic This patch supports the upcomming Intel IOMMU hardware a.k.a. Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture and the hardware spec for the same can be found here http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm FAQ! (questions from akpm, answers from ak) > So... what's all this code for? > > I assume that the intent here is to speed things up under Xen, etc? Yes in some cases, but not this code. That would be the Xen version of this code that could potentially assign whole devices to guests. I expect this to be only useful in some special cases though because most hardware is not virtualizable and you typically want an own instance for each guest. Ok at some point KVM might implement this too; i likely would use this code for this. > Do we > have any benchmark results to help us to decide whether a merge would be > justified? The main advantage for doing it in the normal kernel is not performance, but more safety. Broken devices won't be able to corrupt memory by doing random DMA. Unfortunately that doesn't work for graphics yet, for that need user space interfaces for the X server are needed. There are some potential performance benefits too: - When you have a device that cannot address the complete address range an IOMMU can remap its memory instead of bounce buffering. Remapping is likely cheaper than copying. - The IOMMU can merge sg lists into a single virtual block. This could potentially speed up SG IO when the device is slow walking SG lists. [I long ago benchmarked 5% on some block benchmark with an old MPT Fusion; but it probably depends a lot on the HBA] And you get better driver debugging because unexpected memory accesses from the devices will cause a trappable event. > > Does it slow anything down? It adds more overhead to each IO so yes. This patch: Add support for early detection and parsing of DMAR's (DMA Remapping) reported to OS via ACPI tables. DMA remapping(DMAR) devices support enables independent address translations for Direct Memory Access(DMA) from Devices. These DMA remapping devices are reported via ACPI tables and includes pci device scope covered by these DMA remapping device. For detailed info on the specification of "Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture" please see http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm Signed-off-by: Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Cc: Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@il.ibm.com> Cc: "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> Cc: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> Cc: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> Cc: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2007-10-22 01:41:41 +02:00
#undef PREFIX
#define PREFIX "DMAR:"
/* No locks are needed as DMA remapping hardware unit
* list is constructed at boot time and hotplug of
* these units are not supported by the architecture.
*/
LIST_HEAD(dmar_drhd_units);
static struct acpi_table_header * __initdata dmar_tbl;
static void __init dmar_register_drhd_unit(struct dmar_drhd_unit *drhd)
{
/*
* add INCLUDE_ALL at the tail, so scan the list will find it at
* the very end.
*/
if (drhd->include_all)
list_add_tail(&drhd->list, &dmar_drhd_units);
else
list_add(&drhd->list, &dmar_drhd_units);
}
static int __init dmar_parse_one_dev_scope(struct acpi_dmar_device_scope *scope,
struct pci_dev **dev, u16 segment)
{
struct pci_bus *bus;
struct pci_dev *pdev = NULL;
struct acpi_dmar_pci_path *path;
int count;
bus = pci_find_bus(segment, scope->bus);
path = (struct acpi_dmar_pci_path *)(scope + 1);
count = (scope->length - sizeof(struct acpi_dmar_device_scope))
/ sizeof(struct acpi_dmar_pci_path);
while (count) {
if (pdev)
pci_dev_put(pdev);
/*
* Some BIOSes list non-exist devices in DMAR table, just
* ignore it
*/
if (!bus) {
printk(KERN_WARNING
PREFIX "Device scope bus [%d] not found\n",
scope->bus);
break;
}
pdev = pci_get_slot(bus, PCI_DEVFN(path->dev, path->fn));
if (!pdev) {
printk(KERN_WARNING PREFIX
"Device scope device [%04x:%02x:%02x.%02x] not found\n",
segment, bus->number, path->dev, path->fn);
break;
}
path ++;
count --;
bus = pdev->subordinate;
}
if (!pdev) {
printk(KERN_WARNING PREFIX
"Device scope device [%04x:%02x:%02x.%02x] not found\n",
segment, scope->bus, path->dev, path->fn);
*dev = NULL;
return 0;
}
if ((scope->entry_type == ACPI_DMAR_SCOPE_TYPE_ENDPOINT && \
pdev->subordinate) || (scope->entry_type == \
ACPI_DMAR_SCOPE_TYPE_BRIDGE && !pdev->subordinate)) {
pci_dev_put(pdev);
printk(KERN_WARNING PREFIX
"Device scope type does not match for %s\n",
pci_name(pdev));
return -EINVAL;
}
*dev = pdev;
return 0;
}
static int __init dmar_parse_dev_scope(void *start, void *end, int *cnt,
struct pci_dev ***devices, u16 segment)
{
struct acpi_dmar_device_scope *scope;
void * tmp = start;
int index;
int ret;
*cnt = 0;
while (start < end) {
scope = start;
if (scope->entry_type == ACPI_DMAR_SCOPE_TYPE_ENDPOINT ||
scope->entry_type == ACPI_DMAR_SCOPE_TYPE_BRIDGE)
(*cnt)++;
else
printk(KERN_WARNING PREFIX
"Unsupported device scope\n");
start += scope->length;
}
if (*cnt == 0)
return 0;
*devices = kcalloc(*cnt, sizeof(struct pci_dev *), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!*devices)
return -ENOMEM;
start = tmp;
index = 0;
while (start < end) {
scope = start;
if (scope->entry_type == ACPI_DMAR_SCOPE_TYPE_ENDPOINT ||
scope->entry_type == ACPI_DMAR_SCOPE_TYPE_BRIDGE) {
ret = dmar_parse_one_dev_scope(scope,
&(*devices)[index], segment);
if (ret) {
kfree(*devices);
return ret;
}
index ++;
}
start += scope->length;
}
return 0;
}
/**
* dmar_parse_one_drhd - parses exactly one DMA remapping hardware definition
* structure which uniquely represent one DMA remapping hardware unit
* present in the platform
*/
static int __init
dmar_parse_one_drhd(struct acpi_dmar_header *header)
{
struct acpi_dmar_hardware_unit *drhd;
struct dmar_drhd_unit *dmaru;
int ret = 0;
dmaru = kzalloc(sizeof(*dmaru), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!dmaru)
return -ENOMEM;
dmaru->hdr = header;
Intel IOMMU: DMAR detection and parsing logic This patch supports the upcomming Intel IOMMU hardware a.k.a. Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture and the hardware spec for the same can be found here http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm FAQ! (questions from akpm, answers from ak) > So... what's all this code for? > > I assume that the intent here is to speed things up under Xen, etc? Yes in some cases, but not this code. That would be the Xen version of this code that could potentially assign whole devices to guests. I expect this to be only useful in some special cases though because most hardware is not virtualizable and you typically want an own instance for each guest. Ok at some point KVM might implement this too; i likely would use this code for this. > Do we > have any benchmark results to help us to decide whether a merge would be > justified? The main advantage for doing it in the normal kernel is not performance, but more safety. Broken devices won't be able to corrupt memory by doing random DMA. Unfortunately that doesn't work for graphics yet, for that need user space interfaces for the X server are needed. There are some potential performance benefits too: - When you have a device that cannot address the complete address range an IOMMU can remap its memory instead of bounce buffering. Remapping is likely cheaper than copying. - The IOMMU can merge sg lists into a single virtual block. This could potentially speed up SG IO when the device is slow walking SG lists. [I long ago benchmarked 5% on some block benchmark with an old MPT Fusion; but it probably depends a lot on the HBA] And you get better driver debugging because unexpected memory accesses from the devices will cause a trappable event. > > Does it slow anything down? It adds more overhead to each IO so yes. This patch: Add support for early detection and parsing of DMAR's (DMA Remapping) reported to OS via ACPI tables. DMA remapping(DMAR) devices support enables independent address translations for Direct Memory Access(DMA) from Devices. These DMA remapping devices are reported via ACPI tables and includes pci device scope covered by these DMA remapping device. For detailed info on the specification of "Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture" please see http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm Signed-off-by: Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Cc: Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@il.ibm.com> Cc: "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> Cc: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> Cc: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> Cc: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2007-10-22 01:41:41 +02:00
drhd = (struct acpi_dmar_hardware_unit *)header;
dmaru->reg_base_addr = drhd->address;
dmaru->include_all = drhd->flags & 0x1; /* BIT0: INCLUDE_ALL */
ret = alloc_iommu(dmaru);
if (ret) {
kfree(dmaru);
return ret;
}
dmar_register_drhd_unit(dmaru);
return 0;
}
static int __init dmar_parse_dev(struct dmar_drhd_unit *dmaru)
{
struct acpi_dmar_hardware_unit *drhd;
static int include_all;
int ret = 0;
drhd = (struct acpi_dmar_hardware_unit *) dmaru->hdr;
Intel IOMMU: DMAR detection and parsing logic This patch supports the upcomming Intel IOMMU hardware a.k.a. Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture and the hardware spec for the same can be found here http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm FAQ! (questions from akpm, answers from ak) > So... what's all this code for? > > I assume that the intent here is to speed things up under Xen, etc? Yes in some cases, but not this code. That would be the Xen version of this code that could potentially assign whole devices to guests. I expect this to be only useful in some special cases though because most hardware is not virtualizable and you typically want an own instance for each guest. Ok at some point KVM might implement this too; i likely would use this code for this. > Do we > have any benchmark results to help us to decide whether a merge would be > justified? The main advantage for doing it in the normal kernel is not performance, but more safety. Broken devices won't be able to corrupt memory by doing random DMA. Unfortunately that doesn't work for graphics yet, for that need user space interfaces for the X server are needed. There are some potential performance benefits too: - When you have a device that cannot address the complete address range an IOMMU can remap its memory instead of bounce buffering. Remapping is likely cheaper than copying. - The IOMMU can merge sg lists into a single virtual block. This could potentially speed up SG IO when the device is slow walking SG lists. [I long ago benchmarked 5% on some block benchmark with an old MPT Fusion; but it probably depends a lot on the HBA] And you get better driver debugging because unexpected memory accesses from the devices will cause a trappable event. > > Does it slow anything down? It adds more overhead to each IO so yes. This patch: Add support for early detection and parsing of DMAR's (DMA Remapping) reported to OS via ACPI tables. DMA remapping(DMAR) devices support enables independent address translations for Direct Memory Access(DMA) from Devices. These DMA remapping devices are reported via ACPI tables and includes pci device scope covered by these DMA remapping device. For detailed info on the specification of "Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture" please see http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm Signed-off-by: Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Cc: Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@il.ibm.com> Cc: "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> Cc: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> Cc: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> Cc: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2007-10-22 01:41:41 +02:00
if (!dmaru->include_all)
ret = dmar_parse_dev_scope((void *)(drhd + 1),
((void *)drhd) + drhd->header.length,
Intel IOMMU: DMAR detection and parsing logic This patch supports the upcomming Intel IOMMU hardware a.k.a. Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture and the hardware spec for the same can be found here http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm FAQ! (questions from akpm, answers from ak) > So... what's all this code for? > > I assume that the intent here is to speed things up under Xen, etc? Yes in some cases, but not this code. That would be the Xen version of this code that could potentially assign whole devices to guests. I expect this to be only useful in some special cases though because most hardware is not virtualizable and you typically want an own instance for each guest. Ok at some point KVM might implement this too; i likely would use this code for this. > Do we > have any benchmark results to help us to decide whether a merge would be > justified? The main advantage for doing it in the normal kernel is not performance, but more safety. Broken devices won't be able to corrupt memory by doing random DMA. Unfortunately that doesn't work for graphics yet, for that need user space interfaces for the X server are needed. There are some potential performance benefits too: - When you have a device that cannot address the complete address range an IOMMU can remap its memory instead of bounce buffering. Remapping is likely cheaper than copying. - The IOMMU can merge sg lists into a single virtual block. This could potentially speed up SG IO when the device is slow walking SG lists. [I long ago benchmarked 5% on some block benchmark with an old MPT Fusion; but it probably depends a lot on the HBA] And you get better driver debugging because unexpected memory accesses from the devices will cause a trappable event. > > Does it slow anything down? It adds more overhead to each IO so yes. This patch: Add support for early detection and parsing of DMAR's (DMA Remapping) reported to OS via ACPI tables. DMA remapping(DMAR) devices support enables independent address translations for Direct Memory Access(DMA) from Devices. These DMA remapping devices are reported via ACPI tables and includes pci device scope covered by these DMA remapping device. For detailed info on the specification of "Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture" please see http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm Signed-off-by: Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Cc: Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@il.ibm.com> Cc: "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> Cc: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> Cc: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> Cc: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2007-10-22 01:41:41 +02:00
&dmaru->devices_cnt, &dmaru->devices,
drhd->segment);
else {
/* Only allow one INCLUDE_ALL */
if (include_all) {
printk(KERN_WARNING PREFIX "Only one INCLUDE_ALL "
"device scope is allowed\n");
ret = -EINVAL;
}
include_all = 1;
}
if (ret) {
list_del(&dmaru->list);
Intel IOMMU: DMAR detection and parsing logic This patch supports the upcomming Intel IOMMU hardware a.k.a. Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture and the hardware spec for the same can be found here http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm FAQ! (questions from akpm, answers from ak) > So... what's all this code for? > > I assume that the intent here is to speed things up under Xen, etc? Yes in some cases, but not this code. That would be the Xen version of this code that could potentially assign whole devices to guests. I expect this to be only useful in some special cases though because most hardware is not virtualizable and you typically want an own instance for each guest. Ok at some point KVM might implement this too; i likely would use this code for this. > Do we > have any benchmark results to help us to decide whether a merge would be > justified? The main advantage for doing it in the normal kernel is not performance, but more safety. Broken devices won't be able to corrupt memory by doing random DMA. Unfortunately that doesn't work for graphics yet, for that need user space interfaces for the X server are needed. There are some potential performance benefits too: - When you have a device that cannot address the complete address range an IOMMU can remap its memory instead of bounce buffering. Remapping is likely cheaper than copying. - The IOMMU can merge sg lists into a single virtual block. This could potentially speed up SG IO when the device is slow walking SG lists. [I long ago benchmarked 5% on some block benchmark with an old MPT Fusion; but it probably depends a lot on the HBA] And you get better driver debugging because unexpected memory accesses from the devices will cause a trappable event. > > Does it slow anything down? It adds more overhead to each IO so yes. This patch: Add support for early detection and parsing of DMAR's (DMA Remapping) reported to OS via ACPI tables. DMA remapping(DMAR) devices support enables independent address translations for Direct Memory Access(DMA) from Devices. These DMA remapping devices are reported via ACPI tables and includes pci device scope covered by these DMA remapping device. For detailed info on the specification of "Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture" please see http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm Signed-off-by: Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Cc: Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@il.ibm.com> Cc: "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> Cc: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> Cc: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> Cc: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2007-10-22 01:41:41 +02:00
kfree(dmaru);
}
Intel IOMMU: DMAR detection and parsing logic This patch supports the upcomming Intel IOMMU hardware a.k.a. Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture and the hardware spec for the same can be found here http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm FAQ! (questions from akpm, answers from ak) > So... what's all this code for? > > I assume that the intent here is to speed things up under Xen, etc? Yes in some cases, but not this code. That would be the Xen version of this code that could potentially assign whole devices to guests. I expect this to be only useful in some special cases though because most hardware is not virtualizable and you typically want an own instance for each guest. Ok at some point KVM might implement this too; i likely would use this code for this. > Do we > have any benchmark results to help us to decide whether a merge would be > justified? The main advantage for doing it in the normal kernel is not performance, but more safety. Broken devices won't be able to corrupt memory by doing random DMA. Unfortunately that doesn't work for graphics yet, for that need user space interfaces for the X server are needed. There are some potential performance benefits too: - When you have a device that cannot address the complete address range an IOMMU can remap its memory instead of bounce buffering. Remapping is likely cheaper than copying. - The IOMMU can merge sg lists into a single virtual block. This could potentially speed up SG IO when the device is slow walking SG lists. [I long ago benchmarked 5% on some block benchmark with an old MPT Fusion; but it probably depends a lot on the HBA] And you get better driver debugging because unexpected memory accesses from the devices will cause a trappable event. > > Does it slow anything down? It adds more overhead to each IO so yes. This patch: Add support for early detection and parsing of DMAR's (DMA Remapping) reported to OS via ACPI tables. DMA remapping(DMAR) devices support enables independent address translations for Direct Memory Access(DMA) from Devices. These DMA remapping devices are reported via ACPI tables and includes pci device scope covered by these DMA remapping device. For detailed info on the specification of "Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture" please see http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm Signed-off-by: Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Cc: Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@il.ibm.com> Cc: "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> Cc: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> Cc: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> Cc: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2007-10-22 01:41:41 +02:00
return ret;
}
#ifdef CONFIG_DMAR
LIST_HEAD(dmar_rmrr_units);
static void __init dmar_register_rmrr_unit(struct dmar_rmrr_unit *rmrr)
{
list_add(&rmrr->list, &dmar_rmrr_units);
}
Intel IOMMU: DMAR detection and parsing logic This patch supports the upcomming Intel IOMMU hardware a.k.a. Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture and the hardware spec for the same can be found here http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm FAQ! (questions from akpm, answers from ak) > So... what's all this code for? > > I assume that the intent here is to speed things up under Xen, etc? Yes in some cases, but not this code. That would be the Xen version of this code that could potentially assign whole devices to guests. I expect this to be only useful in some special cases though because most hardware is not virtualizable and you typically want an own instance for each guest. Ok at some point KVM might implement this too; i likely would use this code for this. > Do we > have any benchmark results to help us to decide whether a merge would be > justified? The main advantage for doing it in the normal kernel is not performance, but more safety. Broken devices won't be able to corrupt memory by doing random DMA. Unfortunately that doesn't work for graphics yet, for that need user space interfaces for the X server are needed. There are some potential performance benefits too: - When you have a device that cannot address the complete address range an IOMMU can remap its memory instead of bounce buffering. Remapping is likely cheaper than copying. - The IOMMU can merge sg lists into a single virtual block. This could potentially speed up SG IO when the device is slow walking SG lists. [I long ago benchmarked 5% on some block benchmark with an old MPT Fusion; but it probably depends a lot on the HBA] And you get better driver debugging because unexpected memory accesses from the devices will cause a trappable event. > > Does it slow anything down? It adds more overhead to each IO so yes. This patch: Add support for early detection and parsing of DMAR's (DMA Remapping) reported to OS via ACPI tables. DMA remapping(DMAR) devices support enables independent address translations for Direct Memory Access(DMA) from Devices. These DMA remapping devices are reported via ACPI tables and includes pci device scope covered by these DMA remapping device. For detailed info on the specification of "Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture" please see http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm Signed-off-by: Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Cc: Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@il.ibm.com> Cc: "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> Cc: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> Cc: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> Cc: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2007-10-22 01:41:41 +02:00
static int __init
dmar_parse_one_rmrr(struct acpi_dmar_header *header)
{
struct acpi_dmar_reserved_memory *rmrr;
struct dmar_rmrr_unit *rmrru;
rmrru = kzalloc(sizeof(*rmrru), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!rmrru)
return -ENOMEM;
rmrru->hdr = header;
Intel IOMMU: DMAR detection and parsing logic This patch supports the upcomming Intel IOMMU hardware a.k.a. Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture and the hardware spec for the same can be found here http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm FAQ! (questions from akpm, answers from ak) > So... what's all this code for? > > I assume that the intent here is to speed things up under Xen, etc? Yes in some cases, but not this code. That would be the Xen version of this code that could potentially assign whole devices to guests. I expect this to be only useful in some special cases though because most hardware is not virtualizable and you typically want an own instance for each guest. Ok at some point KVM might implement this too; i likely would use this code for this. > Do we > have any benchmark results to help us to decide whether a merge would be > justified? The main advantage for doing it in the normal kernel is not performance, but more safety. Broken devices won't be able to corrupt memory by doing random DMA. Unfortunately that doesn't work for graphics yet, for that need user space interfaces for the X server are needed. There are some potential performance benefits too: - When you have a device that cannot address the complete address range an IOMMU can remap its memory instead of bounce buffering. Remapping is likely cheaper than copying. - The IOMMU can merge sg lists into a single virtual block. This could potentially speed up SG IO when the device is slow walking SG lists. [I long ago benchmarked 5% on some block benchmark with an old MPT Fusion; but it probably depends a lot on the HBA] And you get better driver debugging because unexpected memory accesses from the devices will cause a trappable event. > > Does it slow anything down? It adds more overhead to each IO so yes. This patch: Add support for early detection and parsing of DMAR's (DMA Remapping) reported to OS via ACPI tables. DMA remapping(DMAR) devices support enables independent address translations for Direct Memory Access(DMA) from Devices. These DMA remapping devices are reported via ACPI tables and includes pci device scope covered by these DMA remapping device. For detailed info on the specification of "Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture" please see http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm Signed-off-by: Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Cc: Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@il.ibm.com> Cc: "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> Cc: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> Cc: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> Cc: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2007-10-22 01:41:41 +02:00
rmrr = (struct acpi_dmar_reserved_memory *)header;
rmrru->base_address = rmrr->base_address;
rmrru->end_address = rmrr->end_address;
dmar_register_rmrr_unit(rmrru);
return 0;
}
static int __init
rmrr_parse_dev(struct dmar_rmrr_unit *rmrru)
{
struct acpi_dmar_reserved_memory *rmrr;
int ret;
rmrr = (struct acpi_dmar_reserved_memory *) rmrru->hdr;
Intel IOMMU: DMAR detection and parsing logic This patch supports the upcomming Intel IOMMU hardware a.k.a. Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture and the hardware spec for the same can be found here http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm FAQ! (questions from akpm, answers from ak) > So... what's all this code for? > > I assume that the intent here is to speed things up under Xen, etc? Yes in some cases, but not this code. That would be the Xen version of this code that could potentially assign whole devices to guests. I expect this to be only useful in some special cases though because most hardware is not virtualizable and you typically want an own instance for each guest. Ok at some point KVM might implement this too; i likely would use this code for this. > Do we > have any benchmark results to help us to decide whether a merge would be > justified? The main advantage for doing it in the normal kernel is not performance, but more safety. Broken devices won't be able to corrupt memory by doing random DMA. Unfortunately that doesn't work for graphics yet, for that need user space interfaces for the X server are needed. There are some potential performance benefits too: - When you have a device that cannot address the complete address range an IOMMU can remap its memory instead of bounce buffering. Remapping is likely cheaper than copying. - The IOMMU can merge sg lists into a single virtual block. This could potentially speed up SG IO when the device is slow walking SG lists. [I long ago benchmarked 5% on some block benchmark with an old MPT Fusion; but it probably depends a lot on the HBA] And you get better driver debugging because unexpected memory accesses from the devices will cause a trappable event. > > Does it slow anything down? It adds more overhead to each IO so yes. This patch: Add support for early detection and parsing of DMAR's (DMA Remapping) reported to OS via ACPI tables. DMA remapping(DMAR) devices support enables independent address translations for Direct Memory Access(DMA) from Devices. These DMA remapping devices are reported via ACPI tables and includes pci device scope covered by these DMA remapping device. For detailed info on the specification of "Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture" please see http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm Signed-off-by: Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Cc: Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@il.ibm.com> Cc: "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> Cc: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> Cc: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> Cc: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2007-10-22 01:41:41 +02:00
ret = dmar_parse_dev_scope((void *)(rmrr + 1),
((void *)rmrr) + rmrr->header.length,
Intel IOMMU: DMAR detection and parsing logic This patch supports the upcomming Intel IOMMU hardware a.k.a. Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture and the hardware spec for the same can be found here http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm FAQ! (questions from akpm, answers from ak) > So... what's all this code for? > > I assume that the intent here is to speed things up under Xen, etc? Yes in some cases, but not this code. That would be the Xen version of this code that could potentially assign whole devices to guests. I expect this to be only useful in some special cases though because most hardware is not virtualizable and you typically want an own instance for each guest. Ok at some point KVM might implement this too; i likely would use this code for this. > Do we > have any benchmark results to help us to decide whether a merge would be > justified? The main advantage for doing it in the normal kernel is not performance, but more safety. Broken devices won't be able to corrupt memory by doing random DMA. Unfortunately that doesn't work for graphics yet, for that need user space interfaces for the X server are needed. There are some potential performance benefits too: - When you have a device that cannot address the complete address range an IOMMU can remap its memory instead of bounce buffering. Remapping is likely cheaper than copying. - The IOMMU can merge sg lists into a single virtual block. This could potentially speed up SG IO when the device is slow walking SG lists. [I long ago benchmarked 5% on some block benchmark with an old MPT Fusion; but it probably depends a lot on the HBA] And you get better driver debugging because unexpected memory accesses from the devices will cause a trappable event. > > Does it slow anything down? It adds more overhead to each IO so yes. This patch: Add support for early detection and parsing of DMAR's (DMA Remapping) reported to OS via ACPI tables. DMA remapping(DMAR) devices support enables independent address translations for Direct Memory Access(DMA) from Devices. These DMA remapping devices are reported via ACPI tables and includes pci device scope covered by these DMA remapping device. For detailed info on the specification of "Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture" please see http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm Signed-off-by: Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Cc: Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@il.ibm.com> Cc: "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> Cc: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> Cc: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> Cc: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2007-10-22 01:41:41 +02:00
&rmrru->devices_cnt, &rmrru->devices, rmrr->segment);
if (ret || (rmrru->devices_cnt == 0)) {
list_del(&rmrru->list);
Intel IOMMU: DMAR detection and parsing logic This patch supports the upcomming Intel IOMMU hardware a.k.a. Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture and the hardware spec for the same can be found here http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm FAQ! (questions from akpm, answers from ak) > So... what's all this code for? > > I assume that the intent here is to speed things up under Xen, etc? Yes in some cases, but not this code. That would be the Xen version of this code that could potentially assign whole devices to guests. I expect this to be only useful in some special cases though because most hardware is not virtualizable and you typically want an own instance for each guest. Ok at some point KVM might implement this too; i likely would use this code for this. > Do we > have any benchmark results to help us to decide whether a merge would be > justified? The main advantage for doing it in the normal kernel is not performance, but more safety. Broken devices won't be able to corrupt memory by doing random DMA. Unfortunately that doesn't work for graphics yet, for that need user space interfaces for the X server are needed. There are some potential performance benefits too: - When you have a device that cannot address the complete address range an IOMMU can remap its memory instead of bounce buffering. Remapping is likely cheaper than copying. - The IOMMU can merge sg lists into a single virtual block. This could potentially speed up SG IO when the device is slow walking SG lists. [I long ago benchmarked 5% on some block benchmark with an old MPT Fusion; but it probably depends a lot on the HBA] And you get better driver debugging because unexpected memory accesses from the devices will cause a trappable event. > > Does it slow anything down? It adds more overhead to each IO so yes. This patch: Add support for early detection and parsing of DMAR's (DMA Remapping) reported to OS via ACPI tables. DMA remapping(DMAR) devices support enables independent address translations for Direct Memory Access(DMA) from Devices. These DMA remapping devices are reported via ACPI tables and includes pci device scope covered by these DMA remapping device. For detailed info on the specification of "Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture" please see http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm Signed-off-by: Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Cc: Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@il.ibm.com> Cc: "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> Cc: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> Cc: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> Cc: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2007-10-22 01:41:41 +02:00
kfree(rmrru);
}
Intel IOMMU: DMAR detection and parsing logic This patch supports the upcomming Intel IOMMU hardware a.k.a. Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture and the hardware spec for the same can be found here http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm FAQ! (questions from akpm, answers from ak) > So... what's all this code for? > > I assume that the intent here is to speed things up under Xen, etc? Yes in some cases, but not this code. That would be the Xen version of this code that could potentially assign whole devices to guests. I expect this to be only useful in some special cases though because most hardware is not virtualizable and you typically want an own instance for each guest. Ok at some point KVM might implement this too; i likely would use this code for this. > Do we > have any benchmark results to help us to decide whether a merge would be > justified? The main advantage for doing it in the normal kernel is not performance, but more safety. Broken devices won't be able to corrupt memory by doing random DMA. Unfortunately that doesn't work for graphics yet, for that need user space interfaces for the X server are needed. There are some potential performance benefits too: - When you have a device that cannot address the complete address range an IOMMU can remap its memory instead of bounce buffering. Remapping is likely cheaper than copying. - The IOMMU can merge sg lists into a single virtual block. This could potentially speed up SG IO when the device is slow walking SG lists. [I long ago benchmarked 5% on some block benchmark with an old MPT Fusion; but it probably depends a lot on the HBA] And you get better driver debugging because unexpected memory accesses from the devices will cause a trappable event. > > Does it slow anything down? It adds more overhead to each IO so yes. This patch: Add support for early detection and parsing of DMAR's (DMA Remapping) reported to OS via ACPI tables. DMA remapping(DMAR) devices support enables independent address translations for Direct Memory Access(DMA) from Devices. These DMA remapping devices are reported via ACPI tables and includes pci device scope covered by these DMA remapping device. For detailed info on the specification of "Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture" please see http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm Signed-off-by: Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Cc: Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@il.ibm.com> Cc: "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> Cc: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> Cc: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> Cc: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2007-10-22 01:41:41 +02:00
return ret;
}
#endif
Intel IOMMU: DMAR detection and parsing logic This patch supports the upcomming Intel IOMMU hardware a.k.a. Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture and the hardware spec for the same can be found here http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm FAQ! (questions from akpm, answers from ak) > So... what's all this code for? > > I assume that the intent here is to speed things up under Xen, etc? Yes in some cases, but not this code. That would be the Xen version of this code that could potentially assign whole devices to guests. I expect this to be only useful in some special cases though because most hardware is not virtualizable and you typically want an own instance for each guest. Ok at some point KVM might implement this too; i likely would use this code for this. > Do we > have any benchmark results to help us to decide whether a merge would be > justified? The main advantage for doing it in the normal kernel is not performance, but more safety. Broken devices won't be able to corrupt memory by doing random DMA. Unfortunately that doesn't work for graphics yet, for that need user space interfaces for the X server are needed. There are some potential performance benefits too: - When you have a device that cannot address the complete address range an IOMMU can remap its memory instead of bounce buffering. Remapping is likely cheaper than copying. - The IOMMU can merge sg lists into a single virtual block. This could potentially speed up SG IO when the device is slow walking SG lists. [I long ago benchmarked 5% on some block benchmark with an old MPT Fusion; but it probably depends a lot on the HBA] And you get better driver debugging because unexpected memory accesses from the devices will cause a trappable event. > > Does it slow anything down? It adds more overhead to each IO so yes. This patch: Add support for early detection and parsing of DMAR's (DMA Remapping) reported to OS via ACPI tables. DMA remapping(DMAR) devices support enables independent address translations for Direct Memory Access(DMA) from Devices. These DMA remapping devices are reported via ACPI tables and includes pci device scope covered by these DMA remapping device. For detailed info on the specification of "Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture" please see http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm Signed-off-by: Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Cc: Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@il.ibm.com> Cc: "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> Cc: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> Cc: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> Cc: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2007-10-22 01:41:41 +02:00
static void __init
dmar_table_print_dmar_entry(struct acpi_dmar_header *header)
{
struct acpi_dmar_hardware_unit *drhd;
struct acpi_dmar_reserved_memory *rmrr;
switch (header->type) {
case ACPI_DMAR_TYPE_HARDWARE_UNIT:
drhd = (struct acpi_dmar_hardware_unit *)header;
printk (KERN_INFO PREFIX
"DRHD (flags: 0x%08x)base: 0x%016Lx\n",
drhd->flags, (unsigned long long)drhd->address);
Intel IOMMU: DMAR detection and parsing logic This patch supports the upcomming Intel IOMMU hardware a.k.a. Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture and the hardware spec for the same can be found here http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm FAQ! (questions from akpm, answers from ak) > So... what's all this code for? > > I assume that the intent here is to speed things up under Xen, etc? Yes in some cases, but not this code. That would be the Xen version of this code that could potentially assign whole devices to guests. I expect this to be only useful in some special cases though because most hardware is not virtualizable and you typically want an own instance for each guest. Ok at some point KVM might implement this too; i likely would use this code for this. > Do we > have any benchmark results to help us to decide whether a merge would be > justified? The main advantage for doing it in the normal kernel is not performance, but more safety. Broken devices won't be able to corrupt memory by doing random DMA. Unfortunately that doesn't work for graphics yet, for that need user space interfaces for the X server are needed. There are some potential performance benefits too: - When you have a device that cannot address the complete address range an IOMMU can remap its memory instead of bounce buffering. Remapping is likely cheaper than copying. - The IOMMU can merge sg lists into a single virtual block. This could potentially speed up SG IO when the device is slow walking SG lists. [I long ago benchmarked 5% on some block benchmark with an old MPT Fusion; but it probably depends a lot on the HBA] And you get better driver debugging because unexpected memory accesses from the devices will cause a trappable event. > > Does it slow anything down? It adds more overhead to each IO so yes. This patch: Add support for early detection and parsing of DMAR's (DMA Remapping) reported to OS via ACPI tables. DMA remapping(DMAR) devices support enables independent address translations for Direct Memory Access(DMA) from Devices. These DMA remapping devices are reported via ACPI tables and includes pci device scope covered by these DMA remapping device. For detailed info on the specification of "Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture" please see http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm Signed-off-by: Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Cc: Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@il.ibm.com> Cc: "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> Cc: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> Cc: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> Cc: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2007-10-22 01:41:41 +02:00
break;
case ACPI_DMAR_TYPE_RESERVED_MEMORY:
rmrr = (struct acpi_dmar_reserved_memory *)header;
printk (KERN_INFO PREFIX
"RMRR base: 0x%016Lx end: 0x%016Lx\n",
(unsigned long long)rmrr->base_address,
(unsigned long long)rmrr->end_address);
Intel IOMMU: DMAR detection and parsing logic This patch supports the upcomming Intel IOMMU hardware a.k.a. Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture and the hardware spec for the same can be found here http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm FAQ! (questions from akpm, answers from ak) > So... what's all this code for? > > I assume that the intent here is to speed things up under Xen, etc? Yes in some cases, but not this code. That would be the Xen version of this code that could potentially assign whole devices to guests. I expect this to be only useful in some special cases though because most hardware is not virtualizable and you typically want an own instance for each guest. Ok at some point KVM might implement this too; i likely would use this code for this. > Do we > have any benchmark results to help us to decide whether a merge would be > justified? The main advantage for doing it in the normal kernel is not performance, but more safety. Broken devices won't be able to corrupt memory by doing random DMA. Unfortunately that doesn't work for graphics yet, for that need user space interfaces for the X server are needed. There are some potential performance benefits too: - When you have a device that cannot address the complete address range an IOMMU can remap its memory instead of bounce buffering. Remapping is likely cheaper than copying. - The IOMMU can merge sg lists into a single virtual block. This could potentially speed up SG IO when the device is slow walking SG lists. [I long ago benchmarked 5% on some block benchmark with an old MPT Fusion; but it probably depends a lot on the HBA] And you get better driver debugging because unexpected memory accesses from the devices will cause a trappable event. > > Does it slow anything down? It adds more overhead to each IO so yes. This patch: Add support for early detection and parsing of DMAR's (DMA Remapping) reported to OS via ACPI tables. DMA remapping(DMAR) devices support enables independent address translations for Direct Memory Access(DMA) from Devices. These DMA remapping devices are reported via ACPI tables and includes pci device scope covered by these DMA remapping device. For detailed info on the specification of "Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture" please see http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm Signed-off-by: Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Cc: Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@il.ibm.com> Cc: "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> Cc: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> Cc: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> Cc: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2007-10-22 01:41:41 +02:00
break;
}
}
/**
* dmar_table_detect - checks to see if the platform supports DMAR devices
*/
static int __init dmar_table_detect(void)
{
acpi_status status = AE_OK;
/* if we could find DMAR table, then there are DMAR devices */
status = acpi_get_table(ACPI_SIG_DMAR, 0,
(struct acpi_table_header **)&dmar_tbl);
if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status) && !dmar_tbl) {
printk (KERN_WARNING PREFIX "Unable to map DMAR\n");
status = AE_NOT_FOUND;
}
return (ACPI_SUCCESS(status) ? 1 : 0);
}
Intel IOMMU: DMAR detection and parsing logic This patch supports the upcomming Intel IOMMU hardware a.k.a. Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture and the hardware spec for the same can be found here http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm FAQ! (questions from akpm, answers from ak) > So... what's all this code for? > > I assume that the intent here is to speed things up under Xen, etc? Yes in some cases, but not this code. That would be the Xen version of this code that could potentially assign whole devices to guests. I expect this to be only useful in some special cases though because most hardware is not virtualizable and you typically want an own instance for each guest. Ok at some point KVM might implement this too; i likely would use this code for this. > Do we > have any benchmark results to help us to decide whether a merge would be > justified? The main advantage for doing it in the normal kernel is not performance, but more safety. Broken devices won't be able to corrupt memory by doing random DMA. Unfortunately that doesn't work for graphics yet, for that need user space interfaces for the X server are needed. There are some potential performance benefits too: - When you have a device that cannot address the complete address range an IOMMU can remap its memory instead of bounce buffering. Remapping is likely cheaper than copying. - The IOMMU can merge sg lists into a single virtual block. This could potentially speed up SG IO when the device is slow walking SG lists. [I long ago benchmarked 5% on some block benchmark with an old MPT Fusion; but it probably depends a lot on the HBA] And you get better driver debugging because unexpected memory accesses from the devices will cause a trappable event. > > Does it slow anything down? It adds more overhead to each IO so yes. This patch: Add support for early detection and parsing of DMAR's (DMA Remapping) reported to OS via ACPI tables. DMA remapping(DMAR) devices support enables independent address translations for Direct Memory Access(DMA) from Devices. These DMA remapping devices are reported via ACPI tables and includes pci device scope covered by these DMA remapping device. For detailed info on the specification of "Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture" please see http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm Signed-off-by: Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Cc: Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@il.ibm.com> Cc: "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> Cc: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> Cc: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> Cc: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2007-10-22 01:41:41 +02:00
/**
* parse_dmar_table - parses the DMA reporting table
*/
static int __init
parse_dmar_table(void)
{
struct acpi_table_dmar *dmar;
struct acpi_dmar_header *entry_header;
int ret = 0;
/*
* Do it again, earlier dmar_tbl mapping could be mapped with
* fixed map.
*/
dmar_table_detect();
Intel IOMMU: DMAR detection and parsing logic This patch supports the upcomming Intel IOMMU hardware a.k.a. Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture and the hardware spec for the same can be found here http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm FAQ! (questions from akpm, answers from ak) > So... what's all this code for? > > I assume that the intent here is to speed things up under Xen, etc? Yes in some cases, but not this code. That would be the Xen version of this code that could potentially assign whole devices to guests. I expect this to be only useful in some special cases though because most hardware is not virtualizable and you typically want an own instance for each guest. Ok at some point KVM might implement this too; i likely would use this code for this. > Do we > have any benchmark results to help us to decide whether a merge would be > justified? The main advantage for doing it in the normal kernel is not performance, but more safety. Broken devices won't be able to corrupt memory by doing random DMA. Unfortunately that doesn't work for graphics yet, for that need user space interfaces for the X server are needed. There are some potential performance benefits too: - When you have a device that cannot address the complete address range an IOMMU can remap its memory instead of bounce buffering. Remapping is likely cheaper than copying. - The IOMMU can merge sg lists into a single virtual block. This could potentially speed up SG IO when the device is slow walking SG lists. [I long ago benchmarked 5% on some block benchmark with an old MPT Fusion; but it probably depends a lot on the HBA] And you get better driver debugging because unexpected memory accesses from the devices will cause a trappable event. > > Does it slow anything down? It adds more overhead to each IO so yes. This patch: Add support for early detection and parsing of DMAR's (DMA Remapping) reported to OS via ACPI tables. DMA remapping(DMAR) devices support enables independent address translations for Direct Memory Access(DMA) from Devices. These DMA remapping devices are reported via ACPI tables and includes pci device scope covered by these DMA remapping device. For detailed info on the specification of "Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture" please see http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm Signed-off-by: Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Cc: Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@il.ibm.com> Cc: "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> Cc: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> Cc: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> Cc: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2007-10-22 01:41:41 +02:00
dmar = (struct acpi_table_dmar *)dmar_tbl;
if (!dmar)
return -ENODEV;
if (dmar->width < PAGE_SHIFT - 1) {
printk(KERN_WARNING PREFIX "Invalid DMAR haw\n");
Intel IOMMU: DMAR detection and parsing logic This patch supports the upcomming Intel IOMMU hardware a.k.a. Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture and the hardware spec for the same can be found here http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm FAQ! (questions from akpm, answers from ak) > So... what's all this code for? > > I assume that the intent here is to speed things up under Xen, etc? Yes in some cases, but not this code. That would be the Xen version of this code that could potentially assign whole devices to guests. I expect this to be only useful in some special cases though because most hardware is not virtualizable and you typically want an own instance for each guest. Ok at some point KVM might implement this too; i likely would use this code for this. > Do we > have any benchmark results to help us to decide whether a merge would be > justified? The main advantage for doing it in the normal kernel is not performance, but more safety. Broken devices won't be able to corrupt memory by doing random DMA. Unfortunately that doesn't work for graphics yet, for that need user space interfaces for the X server are needed. There are some potential performance benefits too: - When you have a device that cannot address the complete address range an IOMMU can remap its memory instead of bounce buffering. Remapping is likely cheaper than copying. - The IOMMU can merge sg lists into a single virtual block. This could potentially speed up SG IO when the device is slow walking SG lists. [I long ago benchmarked 5% on some block benchmark with an old MPT Fusion; but it probably depends a lot on the HBA] And you get better driver debugging because unexpected memory accesses from the devices will cause a trappable event. > > Does it slow anything down? It adds more overhead to each IO so yes. This patch: Add support for early detection and parsing of DMAR's (DMA Remapping) reported to OS via ACPI tables. DMA remapping(DMAR) devices support enables independent address translations for Direct Memory Access(DMA) from Devices. These DMA remapping devices are reported via ACPI tables and includes pci device scope covered by these DMA remapping device. For detailed info on the specification of "Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture" please see http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm Signed-off-by: Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Cc: Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@il.ibm.com> Cc: "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> Cc: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> Cc: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> Cc: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2007-10-22 01:41:41 +02:00
return -EINVAL;
}
printk (KERN_INFO PREFIX "Host address width %d\n",
dmar->width + 1);
entry_header = (struct acpi_dmar_header *)(dmar + 1);
while (((unsigned long)entry_header) <
(((unsigned long)dmar) + dmar_tbl->length)) {
dmar_table_print_dmar_entry(entry_header);
switch (entry_header->type) {
case ACPI_DMAR_TYPE_HARDWARE_UNIT:
ret = dmar_parse_one_drhd(entry_header);
break;
case ACPI_DMAR_TYPE_RESERVED_MEMORY:
#ifdef CONFIG_DMAR
Intel IOMMU: DMAR detection and parsing logic This patch supports the upcomming Intel IOMMU hardware a.k.a. Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture and the hardware spec for the same can be found here http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm FAQ! (questions from akpm, answers from ak) > So... what's all this code for? > > I assume that the intent here is to speed things up under Xen, etc? Yes in some cases, but not this code. That would be the Xen version of this code that could potentially assign whole devices to guests. I expect this to be only useful in some special cases though because most hardware is not virtualizable and you typically want an own instance for each guest. Ok at some point KVM might implement this too; i likely would use this code for this. > Do we > have any benchmark results to help us to decide whether a merge would be > justified? The main advantage for doing it in the normal kernel is not performance, but more safety. Broken devices won't be able to corrupt memory by doing random DMA. Unfortunately that doesn't work for graphics yet, for that need user space interfaces for the X server are needed. There are some potential performance benefits too: - When you have a device that cannot address the complete address range an IOMMU can remap its memory instead of bounce buffering. Remapping is likely cheaper than copying. - The IOMMU can merge sg lists into a single virtual block. This could potentially speed up SG IO when the device is slow walking SG lists. [I long ago benchmarked 5% on some block benchmark with an old MPT Fusion; but it probably depends a lot on the HBA] And you get better driver debugging because unexpected memory accesses from the devices will cause a trappable event. > > Does it slow anything down? It adds more overhead to each IO so yes. This patch: Add support for early detection and parsing of DMAR's (DMA Remapping) reported to OS via ACPI tables. DMA remapping(DMAR) devices support enables independent address translations for Direct Memory Access(DMA) from Devices. These DMA remapping devices are reported via ACPI tables and includes pci device scope covered by these DMA remapping device. For detailed info on the specification of "Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture" please see http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm Signed-off-by: Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Cc: Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@il.ibm.com> Cc: "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> Cc: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> Cc: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> Cc: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2007-10-22 01:41:41 +02:00
ret = dmar_parse_one_rmrr(entry_header);
#endif
Intel IOMMU: DMAR detection and parsing logic This patch supports the upcomming Intel IOMMU hardware a.k.a. Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture and the hardware spec for the same can be found here http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm FAQ! (questions from akpm, answers from ak) > So... what's all this code for? > > I assume that the intent here is to speed things up under Xen, etc? Yes in some cases, but not this code. That would be the Xen version of this code that could potentially assign whole devices to guests. I expect this to be only useful in some special cases though because most hardware is not virtualizable and you typically want an own instance for each guest. Ok at some point KVM might implement this too; i likely would use this code for this. > Do we > have any benchmark results to help us to decide whether a merge would be > justified? The main advantage for doing it in the normal kernel is not performance, but more safety. Broken devices won't be able to corrupt memory by doing random DMA. Unfortunately that doesn't work for graphics yet, for that need user space interfaces for the X server are needed. There are some potential performance benefits too: - When you have a device that cannot address the complete address range an IOMMU can remap its memory instead of bounce buffering. Remapping is likely cheaper than copying. - The IOMMU can merge sg lists into a single virtual block. This could potentially speed up SG IO when the device is slow walking SG lists. [I long ago benchmarked 5% on some block benchmark with an old MPT Fusion; but it probably depends a lot on the HBA] And you get better driver debugging because unexpected memory accesses from the devices will cause a trappable event. > > Does it slow anything down? It adds more overhead to each IO so yes. This patch: Add support for early detection and parsing of DMAR's (DMA Remapping) reported to OS via ACPI tables. DMA remapping(DMAR) devices support enables independent address translations for Direct Memory Access(DMA) from Devices. These DMA remapping devices are reported via ACPI tables and includes pci device scope covered by these DMA remapping device. For detailed info on the specification of "Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture" please see http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm Signed-off-by: Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Cc: Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@il.ibm.com> Cc: "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> Cc: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> Cc: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> Cc: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2007-10-22 01:41:41 +02:00
break;
default:
printk(KERN_WARNING PREFIX
"Unknown DMAR structure type\n");
ret = 0; /* for forward compatibility */
break;
}
if (ret)
break;
entry_header = ((void *)entry_header + entry_header->length);
}
return ret;
}
int dmar_pci_device_match(struct pci_dev *devices[], int cnt,
struct pci_dev *dev)
{
int index;
while (dev) {
for (index = 0; index < cnt; index++)
if (dev == devices[index])
return 1;
/* Check our parent */
dev = dev->bus->self;
}
return 0;
}
struct dmar_drhd_unit *
dmar_find_matched_drhd_unit(struct pci_dev *dev)
{
struct dmar_drhd_unit *drhd = NULL;
list_for_each_entry(drhd, &dmar_drhd_units, list) {
if (drhd->include_all || dmar_pci_device_match(drhd->devices,
drhd->devices_cnt, dev))
return drhd;
}
return NULL;
}
int __init dmar_dev_scope_init(void)
{
struct dmar_drhd_unit *drhd, *drhd_n;
int ret = -ENODEV;
list_for_each_entry_safe(drhd, drhd_n, &dmar_drhd_units, list) {
ret = dmar_parse_dev(drhd);
if (ret)
return ret;
}
#ifdef CONFIG_DMAR
{
struct dmar_rmrr_unit *rmrr, *rmrr_n;
list_for_each_entry_safe(rmrr, rmrr_n, &dmar_rmrr_units, list) {
ret = rmrr_parse_dev(rmrr);
if (ret)
return ret;
}
}
#endif
return ret;
}
Intel IOMMU: DMAR detection and parsing logic This patch supports the upcomming Intel IOMMU hardware a.k.a. Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture and the hardware spec for the same can be found here http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm FAQ! (questions from akpm, answers from ak) > So... what's all this code for? > > I assume that the intent here is to speed things up under Xen, etc? Yes in some cases, but not this code. That would be the Xen version of this code that could potentially assign whole devices to guests. I expect this to be only useful in some special cases though because most hardware is not virtualizable and you typically want an own instance for each guest. Ok at some point KVM might implement this too; i likely would use this code for this. > Do we > have any benchmark results to help us to decide whether a merge would be > justified? The main advantage for doing it in the normal kernel is not performance, but more safety. Broken devices won't be able to corrupt memory by doing random DMA. Unfortunately that doesn't work for graphics yet, for that need user space interfaces for the X server are needed. There are some potential performance benefits too: - When you have a device that cannot address the complete address range an IOMMU can remap its memory instead of bounce buffering. Remapping is likely cheaper than copying. - The IOMMU can merge sg lists into a single virtual block. This could potentially speed up SG IO when the device is slow walking SG lists. [I long ago benchmarked 5% on some block benchmark with an old MPT Fusion; but it probably depends a lot on the HBA] And you get better driver debugging because unexpected memory accesses from the devices will cause a trappable event. > > Does it slow anything down? It adds more overhead to each IO so yes. This patch: Add support for early detection and parsing of DMAR's (DMA Remapping) reported to OS via ACPI tables. DMA remapping(DMAR) devices support enables independent address translations for Direct Memory Access(DMA) from Devices. These DMA remapping devices are reported via ACPI tables and includes pci device scope covered by these DMA remapping device. For detailed info on the specification of "Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture" please see http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm Signed-off-by: Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Cc: Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@il.ibm.com> Cc: "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> Cc: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> Cc: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> Cc: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2007-10-22 01:41:41 +02:00
int __init dmar_table_init(void)
{
static int dmar_table_initialized;
int ret;
if (dmar_table_initialized)
return 0;
dmar_table_initialized = 1;
ret = parse_dmar_table();
if (ret) {
if (ret != -ENODEV)
printk(KERN_INFO PREFIX "parse DMAR table failure.\n");
return ret;
}
Intel IOMMU: DMAR detection and parsing logic This patch supports the upcomming Intel IOMMU hardware a.k.a. Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture and the hardware spec for the same can be found here http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm FAQ! (questions from akpm, answers from ak) > So... what's all this code for? > > I assume that the intent here is to speed things up under Xen, etc? Yes in some cases, but not this code. That would be the Xen version of this code that could potentially assign whole devices to guests. I expect this to be only useful in some special cases though because most hardware is not virtualizable and you typically want an own instance for each guest. Ok at some point KVM might implement this too; i likely would use this code for this. > Do we > have any benchmark results to help us to decide whether a merge would be > justified? The main advantage for doing it in the normal kernel is not performance, but more safety. Broken devices won't be able to corrupt memory by doing random DMA. Unfortunately that doesn't work for graphics yet, for that need user space interfaces for the X server are needed. There are some potential performance benefits too: - When you have a device that cannot address the complete address range an IOMMU can remap its memory instead of bounce buffering. Remapping is likely cheaper than copying. - The IOMMU can merge sg lists into a single virtual block. This could potentially speed up SG IO when the device is slow walking SG lists. [I long ago benchmarked 5% on some block benchmark with an old MPT Fusion; but it probably depends a lot on the HBA] And you get better driver debugging because unexpected memory accesses from the devices will cause a trappable event. > > Does it slow anything down? It adds more overhead to each IO so yes. This patch: Add support for early detection and parsing of DMAR's (DMA Remapping) reported to OS via ACPI tables. DMA remapping(DMAR) devices support enables independent address translations for Direct Memory Access(DMA) from Devices. These DMA remapping devices are reported via ACPI tables and includes pci device scope covered by these DMA remapping device. For detailed info on the specification of "Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture" please see http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm Signed-off-by: Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Cc: Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@il.ibm.com> Cc: "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> Cc: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> Cc: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> Cc: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2007-10-22 01:41:41 +02:00
if (list_empty(&dmar_drhd_units)) {
printk(KERN_INFO PREFIX "No DMAR devices found\n");
return -ENODEV;
}
#ifdef CONFIG_DMAR
if (list_empty(&dmar_rmrr_units))
printk(KERN_INFO PREFIX "No RMRR found\n");
#endif
#ifdef CONFIG_INTR_REMAP
parse_ioapics_under_ir();
#endif
Intel IOMMU: DMAR detection and parsing logic This patch supports the upcomming Intel IOMMU hardware a.k.a. Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture and the hardware spec for the same can be found here http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm FAQ! (questions from akpm, answers from ak) > So... what's all this code for? > > I assume that the intent here is to speed things up under Xen, etc? Yes in some cases, but not this code. That would be the Xen version of this code that could potentially assign whole devices to guests. I expect this to be only useful in some special cases though because most hardware is not virtualizable and you typically want an own instance for each guest. Ok at some point KVM might implement this too; i likely would use this code for this. > Do we > have any benchmark results to help us to decide whether a merge would be > justified? The main advantage for doing it in the normal kernel is not performance, but more safety. Broken devices won't be able to corrupt memory by doing random DMA. Unfortunately that doesn't work for graphics yet, for that need user space interfaces for the X server are needed. There are some potential performance benefits too: - When you have a device that cannot address the complete address range an IOMMU can remap its memory instead of bounce buffering. Remapping is likely cheaper than copying. - The IOMMU can merge sg lists into a single virtual block. This could potentially speed up SG IO when the device is slow walking SG lists. [I long ago benchmarked 5% on some block benchmark with an old MPT Fusion; but it probably depends a lot on the HBA] And you get better driver debugging because unexpected memory accesses from the devices will cause a trappable event. > > Does it slow anything down? It adds more overhead to each IO so yes. This patch: Add support for early detection and parsing of DMAR's (DMA Remapping) reported to OS via ACPI tables. DMA remapping(DMAR) devices support enables independent address translations for Direct Memory Access(DMA) from Devices. These DMA remapping devices are reported via ACPI tables and includes pci device scope covered by these DMA remapping device. For detailed info on the specification of "Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O Architecture" please see http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm Signed-off-by: Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Cc: Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@il.ibm.com> Cc: "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> Cc: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> Cc: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> Cc: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2007-10-22 01:41:41 +02:00
return 0;
}
void __init detect_intel_iommu(void)
{
int ret;
ret = dmar_table_detect();
{
#ifdef CONFIG_INTR_REMAP
struct acpi_table_dmar *dmar;
/*
* for now we will disable dma-remapping when interrupt
* remapping is enabled.
* When support for queued invalidation for IOTLB invalidation
* is added, we will not need this any more.
*/
dmar = (struct acpi_table_dmar *) dmar_tbl;
if (ret && cpu_has_x2apic && dmar->flags & 0x1)
printk(KERN_INFO
"Queued invalidation will be enabled to support "
"x2apic and Intr-remapping.\n");
#endif
#ifdef CONFIG_DMAR
if (ret && !no_iommu && !iommu_detected && !swiotlb &&
!dmar_disabled)
iommu_detected = 1;
#endif
}
dmar_tbl = NULL;
}
int alloc_iommu(struct dmar_drhd_unit *drhd)
{
struct intel_iommu *iommu;
int map_size;
u32 ver;
static int iommu_allocated = 0;
iommu = kzalloc(sizeof(*iommu), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!iommu)
return -ENOMEM;
iommu->seq_id = iommu_allocated++;
iommu->reg = ioremap(drhd->reg_base_addr, VTD_PAGE_SIZE);
if (!iommu->reg) {
printk(KERN_ERR "IOMMU: can't map the region\n");
goto error;
}
iommu->cap = dmar_readq(iommu->reg + DMAR_CAP_REG);
iommu->ecap = dmar_readq(iommu->reg + DMAR_ECAP_REG);
/* the registers might be more than one page */
map_size = max_t(int, ecap_max_iotlb_offset(iommu->ecap),
cap_max_fault_reg_offset(iommu->cap));
map_size = VTD_PAGE_ALIGN(map_size);
if (map_size > VTD_PAGE_SIZE) {
iounmap(iommu->reg);
iommu->reg = ioremap(drhd->reg_base_addr, map_size);
if (!iommu->reg) {
printk(KERN_ERR "IOMMU: can't map the region\n");
goto error;
}
}
ver = readl(iommu->reg + DMAR_VER_REG);
pr_debug("IOMMU %llx: ver %d:%d cap %llx ecap %llx\n",
(unsigned long long)drhd->reg_base_addr,
DMAR_VER_MAJOR(ver), DMAR_VER_MINOR(ver),
(unsigned long long)iommu->cap,
(unsigned long long)iommu->ecap);
spin_lock_init(&iommu->register_lock);
drhd->iommu = iommu;
return 0;
error:
kfree(iommu);
return -1;
}
void free_iommu(struct intel_iommu *iommu)
{
if (!iommu)
return;
#ifdef CONFIG_DMAR
free_dmar_iommu(iommu);
#endif
if (iommu->reg)
iounmap(iommu->reg);
kfree(iommu);
}
/*
* Reclaim all the submitted descriptors which have completed its work.
*/
static inline void reclaim_free_desc(struct q_inval *qi)
{
while (qi->desc_status[qi->free_tail] == QI_DONE) {
qi->desc_status[qi->free_tail] = QI_FREE;
qi->free_tail = (qi->free_tail + 1) % QI_LENGTH;
qi->free_cnt++;
}
}
/*
* Submit the queued invalidation descriptor to the remapping
* hardware unit and wait for its completion.
*/
void qi_submit_sync(struct qi_desc *desc, struct intel_iommu *iommu)
{
struct q_inval *qi = iommu->qi;
struct qi_desc *hw, wait_desc;
int wait_index, index;
unsigned long flags;
if (!qi)
return;
hw = qi->desc;
spin_lock_irqsave(&qi->q_lock, flags);
while (qi->free_cnt < 3) {
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&qi->q_lock, flags);
cpu_relax();
spin_lock_irqsave(&qi->q_lock, flags);
}
index = qi->free_head;
wait_index = (index + 1) % QI_LENGTH;
qi->desc_status[index] = qi->desc_status[wait_index] = QI_IN_USE;
hw[index] = *desc;
wait_desc.low = QI_IWD_STATUS_DATA(2) | QI_IWD_STATUS_WRITE | QI_IWD_TYPE;
wait_desc.high = virt_to_phys(&qi->desc_status[wait_index]);
hw[wait_index] = wait_desc;
__iommu_flush_cache(iommu, &hw[index], sizeof(struct qi_desc));
__iommu_flush_cache(iommu, &hw[wait_index], sizeof(struct qi_desc));
qi->free_head = (qi->free_head + 2) % QI_LENGTH;
qi->free_cnt -= 2;
spin_lock(&iommu->register_lock);
/*
* update the HW tail register indicating the presence of
* new descriptors.
*/
writel(qi->free_head << 4, iommu->reg + DMAR_IQT_REG);
spin_unlock(&iommu->register_lock);
while (qi->desc_status[wait_index] != QI_DONE) {
/*
* We will leave the interrupts disabled, to prevent interrupt
* context to queue another cmd while a cmd is already submitted
* and waiting for completion on this cpu. This is to avoid
* a deadlock where the interrupt context can wait indefinitely
* for free slots in the queue.
*/
spin_unlock(&qi->q_lock);
cpu_relax();
spin_lock(&qi->q_lock);
}
qi->desc_status[index] = QI_DONE;
reclaim_free_desc(qi);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&qi->q_lock, flags);
}
/*
* Flush the global interrupt entry cache.
*/
void qi_global_iec(struct intel_iommu *iommu)
{
struct qi_desc desc;
desc.low = QI_IEC_TYPE;
desc.high = 0;
qi_submit_sync(&desc, iommu);
}
int qi_flush_context(struct intel_iommu *iommu, u16 did, u16 sid, u8 fm,
u64 type, int non_present_entry_flush)
{
struct qi_desc desc;
if (non_present_entry_flush) {
if (!cap_caching_mode(iommu->cap))
return 1;
else
did = 0;
}
desc.low = QI_CC_FM(fm) | QI_CC_SID(sid) | QI_CC_DID(did)
| QI_CC_GRAN(type) | QI_CC_TYPE;
desc.high = 0;
qi_submit_sync(&desc, iommu);
return 0;
}
int qi_flush_iotlb(struct intel_iommu *iommu, u16 did, u64 addr,
unsigned int size_order, u64 type,
int non_present_entry_flush)
{
u8 dw = 0, dr = 0;
struct qi_desc desc;
int ih = 0;
if (non_present_entry_flush) {
if (!cap_caching_mode(iommu->cap))
return 1;
else
did = 0;
}
if (cap_write_drain(iommu->cap))
dw = 1;
if (cap_read_drain(iommu->cap))
dr = 1;
desc.low = QI_IOTLB_DID(did) | QI_IOTLB_DR(dr) | QI_IOTLB_DW(dw)
| QI_IOTLB_GRAN(type) | QI_IOTLB_TYPE;
desc.high = QI_IOTLB_ADDR(addr) | QI_IOTLB_IH(ih)
| QI_IOTLB_AM(size_order);
qi_submit_sync(&desc, iommu);
return 0;
}
/*
* Enable Queued Invalidation interface. This is a must to support
* interrupt-remapping. Also used by DMA-remapping, which replaces
* register based IOTLB invalidation.
*/
int dmar_enable_qi(struct intel_iommu *iommu)
{
u32 cmd, sts;
unsigned long flags;
struct q_inval *qi;
if (!ecap_qis(iommu->ecap))
return -ENOENT;
/*
* queued invalidation is already setup and enabled.
*/
if (iommu->qi)
return 0;
iommu->qi = kmalloc(sizeof(*qi), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!iommu->qi)
return -ENOMEM;
qi = iommu->qi;
qi->desc = (void *)(get_zeroed_page(GFP_KERNEL));
if (!qi->desc) {
kfree(qi);
iommu->qi = 0;
return -ENOMEM;
}
qi->desc_status = kmalloc(QI_LENGTH * sizeof(int), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!qi->desc_status) {
free_page((unsigned long) qi->desc);
kfree(qi);
iommu->qi = 0;
return -ENOMEM;
}
qi->free_head = qi->free_tail = 0;
qi->free_cnt = QI_LENGTH;
spin_lock_init(&qi->q_lock);
spin_lock_irqsave(&iommu->register_lock, flags);
/* write zero to the tail reg */
writel(0, iommu->reg + DMAR_IQT_REG);
dmar_writeq(iommu->reg + DMAR_IQA_REG, virt_to_phys(qi->desc));
cmd = iommu->gcmd | DMA_GCMD_QIE;
iommu->gcmd |= DMA_GCMD_QIE;
writel(cmd, iommu->reg + DMAR_GCMD_REG);
/* Make sure hardware complete it */
IOMMU_WAIT_OP(iommu, DMAR_GSTS_REG, readl, (sts & DMA_GSTS_QIES), sts);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&iommu->register_lock, flags);
return 0;
}