From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail02.groups.io (mail02.groups.io [66.175.222.108]) by spool.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E54974003E for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2024 09:43:29 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; bh=Sb7g0iHQOUXK9h19pKAhv2HMXSfYMsUTmO92HrfuE0Q=; c=relaxed/simple; d=groups.io; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:Precedence:List-Subscribe:List-Help:Sender:List-Id:Mailing-List:Delivered-To:Reply-To:List-Unsubscribe-Post:List-Unsubscribe:Content-Type:Content-Disposition; s=20140610; t=1706780607; v=1; b=iMOyWfz1fz8ty76Pgfa9ZYIw1ar75h0X5kiGf1NIGlr6hL84AYsYuGUNMvJR3nWY5t7RTNvD EbIOlENeE45pAqXU5omw5fS7P0hgxjSxtSgndjg5G0TI39yhULCB9zbqnicR0gLXhGAA5QXpF5n X98RgvnTX/8ESVNT24cyB7pk= X-Received: by 127.0.0.2 with SMTP id OyzyYY7687511xczmcyGx5Js; Thu, 01 Feb 2024 01:43:27 -0800 X-Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web11.11935.1706780607193599084 for ; Thu, 01 Feb 2024 01:43:27 -0800 X-Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx-ext.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-315-1KTiPa_DPm2JTyAlfEh07A-1; Thu, 01 Feb 2024 04:43:23 -0500 X-MC-Unique: 1KTiPa_DPm2JTyAlfEh07A-1 X-Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A141D38562D2; Thu, 1 Feb 2024 09:43:22 +0000 (UTC) X-Received: from sirius.home.kraxel.org (unknown [10.39.193.17]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 790711121306; Thu, 1 Feb 2024 09:43:22 +0000 (UTC) X-Received: by sirius.home.kraxel.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 469131800908; Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:43:17 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:43:17 +0100 From: "Gerd Hoffmann" To: "Sun, Yi Y" Cc: "Xu, Min M" , "devel@edk2.groups.io" , "lersek@redhat.com" , Michael Roth , Oliver Steffen , "Yao, Jiewen" , Tom Lendacky , Ard Biesheuvel , "Aktas, Erdem" , "Huang, Jiaqing" Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v3 1/4] OvmfPkg/Sec: Setup MTRR early in the boot process. Message-ID: References: <20240130130441.772484-1-kraxel@redhat.com> <20240130130441.772484-2-kraxel@redhat.com> <7b3177f0-9696-07e1-ad0e-040d5392b067@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.3 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Precedence: Bulk List-Subscribe: List-Help: Sender: devel@edk2.groups.io List-Id: Mailing-List: list devel@edk2.groups.io; contact devel+owner@edk2.groups.io Reply-To: devel@edk2.groups.io,kraxel@redhat.com List-Unsubscribe-Post: List-Unsubscribe=One-Click List-Unsubscribe: X-Gm-Message-State: Xi4lA9OyBFSubVVN8YfPMxXLx7686176AA= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-GND-Status: LEGIT Authentication-Results: spool.mail.gandi.net; dkim=pass header.d=groups.io header.s=20140610 header.b=iMOyWfz1; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed), DKIM not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=redhat.com (policy=none); spf=pass (spool.mail.gandi.net: domain of bounce@groups.io designates 66.175.222.108 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=bounce@groups.io On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 06:10:26AM +0000, Sun, Yi Y wrote: > Hi, all, > > Per our test, this issue only happens when the mdev/vdev is assigned > to VM. But PF(physical function)/VF(virtual function) assignment is > good. Per Jiaqing's investigation, it is because that the mdev/vdev > passthrough flow is different with PF/VF. For vdev/mdev passthrough to > VM, the enforce_cache_coherency was enabled after device bound to > iommufd. But it doesn't update the kvm coherency state after that. > This makes the memory type be UNCACHABLE which causes the reading is > very slow. > > So, what is your opinion to fix it? Which side to fix it is better, > ovmf or vfio? Thanks! Both? For OVMF it surely makes sense to properly setup MTRRs. And if the cache coherency behavior of vfio is not correct that should be fixed too of course. take care, Gerd -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#114940): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/114940 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/104052591/7686176 Group Owner: devel+owner@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [rebecca@openfw.io] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-