On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 14:08:03 +0100
Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 22/11/2018 17:54, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > Add a region to the vfio-ccw device that can be used to submit
> > asynchronous I/O instructions. ssch continues to be handled by the
> > existing I/O region; the new region handles hsch and csch.
> >
> > Interrupt status continues to be reported through the same channels
> > as for ssch.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/s390/cio/Makefile | 3 +-
> > drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_async.c | 88 ++++++++++++++++
> > drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_drv.c | 48 ++++++---
> > drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_fsm.c | 158 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_ops.c | 13 ++-
> > drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_private.h | 6 ++
> > include/uapi/linux/vfio.h | 4 +
> > include/uapi/linux/vfio_ccw.h | 12 +++
> > 8 files changed, 313 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> > create mode 100644 drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_async.c
(...)
> > +static int fsm_do_halt(struct vfio_ccw_private *private)
> > +{
> > + struct subchannel *sch;
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > + int ccode;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + sch = private->sch;
> > +
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(sch->lock, flags);
> > + private->state = VFIO_CCW_STATE_BUSY;
> > +
> > + /* Issue "Halt Subchannel" */
> > + ccode = hsch(sch->schid);
> > +
> > + switch (ccode) {
> > + case 0:
> > + /*
> > + * Initialize device status information
> > + */
> > + sch->schib.scsw.cmd.actl |= SCSW_ACTL_HALT_PEND;
> > + ret = 0;
> > + break;
> > + case 1: /* Status pending */
> > + case 2: /* Busy */
> > + ret = -EBUSY;
> > + break;
> > + case 3: /* Device not operational */
> > + {
> > + ret = -ENODEV;
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + default:
> > + ret = ccode;
> > + }
>
> Shouldn't you set the state back here?
This is handled as for ssch, i.e. the state is restored by the caller.
>
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(sch->lock, flags);
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int fsm_do_clear(struct vfio_ccw_private *private)
> > +{
> > + struct subchannel *sch;
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > + int ccode;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + sch = private->sch;
> > +
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(sch->lock, flags);
> > + private->state = VFIO_CCW_STATE_BUSY;
> > +
> > + /* Issue "Clear Subchannel" */
> > + ccode = csch(sch->schid);
> > +
> > + switch (ccode) {
> > + case 0:
> > + /*
> > + * Initialize device status information
> > + */
> > + sch->schib.scsw.cmd.actl = SCSW_ACTL_CLEAR_PEND;
> > + /* TODO: check what else we might need to clear */
> > + ret = 0;
> > + break;
> > + case 3: /* Device not operational */
> > + {
> > + ret = -ENODEV;
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + default:
> > + ret = ccode;
> > + }
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(sch->lock, flags);
> > + return ret;
Same here, btw.
> > +}
> > +
> > static void fsm_notoper(struct vfio_ccw_private *private,
> > enum vfio_ccw_event event)
> > {
> > @@ -102,6 +179,20 @@ static void fsm_io_busy(struct vfio_ccw_private *private,
> > private->io_region->ret_code = -EBUSY;
> > }
> >
> > +static void fsm_async_error(struct vfio_ccw_private *private,
> > + enum vfio_ccw_event event)
> > +{
> > + pr_err("vfio-ccw: FSM: halt/clear request from state:%d\n",
> > + private->state);
> > + private->cmd_region->ret_code = -EIO;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void fsm_async_busy(struct vfio_ccw_private *private,
> > + enum vfio_ccw_event event)
> > +{
> > + private->cmd_region->ret_code = -EBUSY;
> > +}
> > +
> > static void fsm_disabled_irq(struct vfio_ccw_private *private,
> > enum vfio_ccw_event event)
> > {
> > @@ -166,11 +257,11 @@ static void fsm_io_request(struct vfio_ccw_private *private,
> > }
> > return;
> > } else if (scsw->cmd.fctl & SCSW_FCTL_HALT_FUNC) {
> > - /* XXX: Handle halt. */
> > + /* halt is handled via the async cmd region */
> > io_region->ret_code = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > goto err_out;
> > } else if (scsw->cmd.fctl & SCSW_FCTL_CLEAR_FUNC) {
> > - /* XXX: Handle clear. */
> > + /* clear is handled via the async cmd region */
> > io_region->ret_code = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > goto err_out;
>
> What about filtering inside the vfio_ccw_mdev_write_io_region() before
> the call to the FSM?
We can do that as well, maybe as a patch on top. What I like about
doing it here is that all poking into the I/O region is done in one
place. On the other hand, doing it beforehand saves us some churn.
>
>
> > }
> > @@ -181,6 +272,59 @@ static void fsm_io_request(struct vfio_ccw_private *private,
> > io_region->ret_code, errstr);
> > }
> >
> > +/*
> > + * Deal with a halt request from userspace.
> > + */
> > +static void fsm_halt_request(struct vfio_ccw_private *private,
> > + enum vfio_ccw_event event)
> > +{
> > + struct ccw_cmd_region *cmd_region = private->cmd_region;
> > + int state = private->state;
> > +
> > + private->state = VFIO_CCW_STATE_BOXED;
> > +
> > + if (cmd_region->command != VFIO_CCW_ASYNC_CMD_HSCH) {
> > + /* should not happen? */
>
> I think we should make sure it does not happen before we get here.
> Like serializing HALT and CLEAR before the FSM.
Given that there's only one generator of that event, that really should
not happen :) It would mean that we have messed up our code later on.
Maybe complain loudly here?
>
> > + cmd_region->ret_code = -EINVAL;
> > + goto err_out;
> > + }
> > +
> > + cmd_region->ret_code = fsm_do_halt(private);
>
> fsm_do_halt() set the state to BUSY.
> Do we need a state change here and in fsm_do_halt ?
>
> Why not only the BUSY state?
I basically took the ssch implementation and adapted it for halt/clear
handling. We can certainly think about doing state transitions in
different places, but I'd like to do that for all channel instructions
at the same time.
[Also note that this is still based on a version that still contains
the BOXED state.]
>
> > + if (cmd_region->ret_code)
> > + goto err_out;
> > +
> > + return;
> > +
> > +err_out:
> > + private->state = state;
> > +}
> > +
>
> ...snip...
>
> Regards,
> Pierre
>
