On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:14:24 +0530
Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 11/16/2016 3:07 PM, Jike Song wrote:
> > On 11/16/2016 05:14 PM, Kirti Wankhede wrote:
> >> On 11/16/2016 9:13 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 11:01:37 +0800
> >>> Jike Song <jike.song@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 11/16/2016 07:11 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 19:35:46 +0800
> >>>>> Jike Song <jike.song@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> The user of vfio_register_notifier might care about not only
> >>>>>> iommu events but also vfio_group events, so also register the
> >>>>>> notifier_block on vfio_group.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Cc: Xiao Guangrong <guangrong.xiao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>> Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>> Cc: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jike Song <jike.song@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>> drivers/vfio/vfio.c | 4 ++++
> >>>>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/vfio.c b/drivers/vfio/vfio.c
> >>>>>> index b149ced..2c0eedb 100644
> >>>>>> --- a/drivers/vfio/vfio.c
> >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/vfio/vfio.c
> >>>>>> @@ -2065,6 +2065,8 @@ int vfio_register_notifier(struct device *dev, struct notifier_block *nb)
> >>>>>> else
> >>>>>> ret = -ENOTTY;
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> + vfio_group_register_notifier(group, nb);
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> up_read(&container->group_lock);
> >>>>>> vfio_group_try_dissolve_container(group);
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> @@ -2102,6 +2104,8 @@ int vfio_unregister_notifier(struct device *dev, struct notifier_block *nb)
> >>>>>> else
> >>>>>> ret = -ENOTTY;
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> + vfio_group_unregister_notifier(group, nb);
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> up_read(&container->group_lock);
> >>>>>> vfio_group_try_dissolve_container(group);
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You haven't addressed the error paths, if the iommu driver returns
> >>>>> error and therefore the {un}register returns error, what is the caller
> >>>>> to expect about the group registration?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Will change to:
> >>>>
> >>>> driver = container->iommu_driver;
> >>>> if (likely(driver && driver->ops->register_notifier))
> >>>> ret = driver->ops->register_notifier(container->iommu_data, nb);
> >>>> else
> >>>> ret = -ENOTTY;
> >>>> if (ret)
> >>>> goto err_register_iommu;
> >>>>
> >>>> ret = vfio_group_register_notifier(group, nb);
> >>>> if (ret)
> >>>> driver->ops->unregister_notifier(container->iommu_data, nb);
> >>>>
> >>>> err_register_iommu:
> >>>> up_read(&container->group_lock);
> >>>> vfio_group_try_dissolve_container(group);
> >>>>
> >>>> err_register_nb:
> >>>> vfio_group_put(group);
> >>>> return ret;
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> What if a vendor driver only cares about the kvm state and doesn't pin
> >>> memory (ie. no DMA) or only cares about iommu and not group notifies?
> >>> If we handled notifier_fn_t 'action' as a bitmask then we could have the
> >>> registrar specify which notification they wanted (a mask/filter), so if
> >>> they only want KVM, we only send that notify, if they only want UNMAPs,
> >>> etc. Then we know whether iommu registration is required. As a bonus,
> >>> we could add a pr_info() indicating vendors that ask for KVM
> >>> notification so that we can interrogate why they think they need it.
> >>> The downside is that handling action as a bitmask means that we limit
> >>> the number of actions we have available (32 or 64 bits worth). That
> >>> limit is hopefully far enough off to be ok though. Thoughts? Thanks,
> >>>
> >>
> >> As per my understanding, this bitmask is input to
> >> vfio_register_notifier() and vfio_unregister_notifier(), right?
> >>
> >> These functions are not called from vendor driver directly, these are
> >> called from vfio_mdev. Then should this bitmask be part of parent_ops
> >> that vendor driver can specify?
> >
> > I think so, there should be a 'notifiler_filter' in parent_ops to indicate
> > that. A draft patch to show Alex's proposal:
> >
>
> In that case how can we use bitmask to register multiple actions from
> backend iommu module (now we only have VFIO_IOMMU_NOTIFY_DMA_UNMAP
> action)? Even if we pass bitmask to backend iommu modules
> register_notifier(), backend module would have to create separate
> notifier for each action?
>
> Instead of taking bitmask as input from vendor driver, vendor driver's
> callback can send return depending on action if they don't want to get
> future notification:
>
> #define NOTIFY_DONE 0x0000 /* Don't care */
> #define NOTIFY_OK 0x0001 /* Suits me */
> #define NOTIFY_STOP_MASK 0x8000 /* Don't call further */
> #define NOTIFY_BAD (NOTIFY_STOP_MASK|0x0002)
> /* Bad/Veto action */
> /*
> * Clean way to return from the notifier and stop further calls.
> */
> #define NOTIFY_STOP (NOTIFY_OK|NOTIFY_STOP_MASK)
I don't think that's a correct interpretation of NOTIFY_STOP_MASK, it
intends to say "this notification was for me, I've handled it, no need
to continue through the call chain". It does not imply "don't tell me
about this event in the future", entries in the call chain don't have
the ability to suppress certain events.
Also note that NOTIFY_STOP_MASK is returned by
blocking_notifier_call_chain(), so we can pr_warn if a call chain
member is potentially preventing other notify-ees from receiving the
event.
Should we be revisiting the question of whether notifiers are registered
as part of the mdev-core? In the current proposals
vfio_{un}register_notifier() is exported, so it's really just a
convenience that the mdev core registers it on behalf of the vendor
driver. Vendor drivers could register on open and unregister on
release (vfio could additionally do housekeeping on release). We
already expect vendor drivers to call vfio_{un}pin_pages() directly.
Then the vendor driver would provide filter flags directly and we'd
make that part of the mdev-vendor driver API a little more flexible.
Thanks,
Alex
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
