Messages in this thread |  | | From | Jerry Snitselaar <> | Subject | Re: Question about domain_init (v5.3-v5.7) | Date | Mon, 30 Nov 2020 11:03:06 -0700 |
| |
Jerry Snitselaar @ 2020-11-30 10:50 MST:
> Lu Baolu @ 2020-11-26 19:12 MST: > >> Hi Jerry, >> >> On 11/27/20 5:35 AM, Jerry Snitselaar wrote: >>> Lu Baolu @ 2020-11-26 04:01 MST: >>> >>>> Hi Jerry, >>>> >>>> On 2020/11/26 4:27, Jerry Snitselaar wrote: >>>>> Is there a reason we check the requested guest address width against >>>>> the >>>>> iommu's mgaw, instead of the agaw that we already know for the iommu? >>>>> I've run into a case with a new system where the mgaw reported is 57, >>>>> but if they set PAE to 46 instead of 52 in the bios, then sagaw reports >>>>> the highest supported agaw is 48 and the domain_init code fails here. In >>>> >>>> Isn't this a platform bug? If it's too late to fix it in the BIOS, you >>>> maybe have to add a platform specific quirk to set mgaw to the highest >>>> supported agaw? >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> baolu >>> Is there somewhere you can point me to that discusses how they >>> should be >>> setting the mgaw? I misunderstood when I previously asked you about >>> whether the mgaw could be a value that was greater than any of sagaw. >>> If it is a bios issue, then they should fix it there. >> >> MGAW indicates the max gpa width supported by 2nd translation. The VT-d >> spec requires that this value must be at least equal to the host >> physical addressibility. According to this, BIOS is good, right? >> >> For this failure case, domain_init() just wants to find a suitable agaw >> for the private domain. I think it makes sense to check against >> iommu->agaw instead of cap_mgaw. >> >> Best regards, >> baolu >> > > From this bit in the spec about MGAW: > > Guest addressability for a given DMA request is limited to the > minimum of the value reported through this field and the adjusted > guest address width of the corresponding page-table structure. > (Adjusted guest address widths supported by hardware are reported > through the SAGAW field). > > That does suggest it should be adjusted down to the sagaw value in this case, yes? > Just want to make sure I'm understanding it correctly.
Or I guess that is really talking about if you had an mgaw lower than the the sagaw, the dma request would be limited to that lower mgaw value.
> >>> >>>> >>>>> other places like prepare_domain_attach_device, the dmar domain agaw >>>>> gets adjusted down to the iommu agaw. The agaw of the iommu gets >>>>> determined based off what is reported for sagaw. I'm wondering if it >>>>> can't instead do: >>>>> --- >>>>> drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c | 4 ++-- >>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c >>>>> b/drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c >>>>> index 6ca5c92ef2e5..a8e41ec36d9e 100644 >>>>> --- a/drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c >>>>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c >>>>> @@ -1862,8 +1862,8 @@ static int domain_init(struct dmar_domain *domain, struct intel_iommu *iommu, >>>>> domain_reserve_special_ranges(domain); >>>>> /* calculate AGAW */ >>>>> - if (guest_width > cap_mgaw(iommu->cap)) >>>>> - guest_width = cap_mgaw(iommu->cap); >>>>> + if (guest_width > agaw_to_width(iommu->agaw)) >>>>> + guest_width = agaw_to_width(iommu->agaw); >>>>> domain->gaw = guest_width; >>>>> adjust_width = guestwidth_to_adjustwidth(guest_width); >>>>> agaw = width_to_agaw(adjust_width); >>>>> -- >>>>> 2.27.0 >>>>> >>>>> Thoughts? With the former code the ehci device for the ilo fails when >>>>> trying to get a private domain. >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Jerry >>>>> >>>
|  |