On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 14:41:35 +0100
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 14:36:13 +0100
> Halil Pasic <pasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 11:34:44 +0100
> > Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> + spin_unlock(&kvm->arch.iam_ref_lock);
> > > > >>> +
> > > > >>> + return gib->nisc;
> > > > >>> +}
> > > > >>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kvm_s390_gisc_register);
> > > > >>> +
> > > > >>> +int kvm_s390_gisc_unregister(struct kvm *kvm, u32 gisc)
> > > > >>> +{
> > > > >>> + int rc = 0;
> > > > >>> +
> > > > >>> + if (!kvm->arch.gib_in_use)
> > > > >>> + return -ENODEV;
> > > > >>> + if (gisc > MAX_ISC)
> > > > >>> + return -ERANGE;
> > > > >>> +
> > > > >>> + spin_lock(&kvm->arch.iam_ref_lock);
> > > > >>> + if (kvm->arch.iam_ref_count[gisc] == 0) {
> > > > >>> + rc = -EINVAL;
> > > > >>> + goto out;
> > > > >>> + }
> > > > >>> + kvm->arch.iam_ref_count[gisc]--;
> > > > >>> + if (kvm->arch.iam_ref_count[gisc] == 0) {
> > > > >>> + kvm->arch.iam &= ~(0x80 >> gisc);
> > > > >>> + set_iam(kvm->arch.gisa, kvm->arch.iam);
> > > > >
> > > > > Any chance of this function failing here? If yes, would there be any
> > > > > implications?
> > > >
> > > > It is the same here.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure that I follow: This is the reverse operation
> > > (unregistering the gisc). Can we rely on get_ipm() to do any fixup
> > > later? Is that a problem for the caller?
> >
> > IMHO gib alerts are all about not loosing initiative. I.e. avoiding
> > substantially delayed delivery of interrupts due to vCPUs in wait
> > state.
> >
> > Thus we must avoid letting go before setting up stuff (gisa.iam under
> > consideration of gisa ipm, gisa.next_alert, and gib.alert_list_origin)
> > so that we can react on the next interrupt (if necessary).
> >
> > On the other hand, getting more gisa alerts than necessary is not
> > fatal -- better avoided if not too much hassle of course.
>
> Yes, unless the caller does not expect any more alerts after
> unregistering (I guess that's what you're saying?)
Just to make sure, the caller, which I guess would probably be some
sort of a driver, does not process the alerts. It is kvm that does.
But you are right, the properties of unregister need do be considered in
the cleanup code (e.g. resets). Sure, we must avoid the
process_gib_alert_list() (which is common, i.e. ain't tied to any
VM) poking dead GISAs. Frankly, I've my hands full with the normal
operation scenario, and I did not pay much attention to the cleanup yet.
>
> >
> > Bottom line is, while it may be critical that the IAM changes implied
> > by register take place immediately, unregister is a different story.
>
> It does feel a bit weird, though. But maybe I just have trouble
> grasping the design :/
>
You are on the only one. I have extreme difficulties following some of
the discussion here -- despite of the fact that I have quite some
confidence in my understanding of the GISA/GIB architecture.
Regards,
Halil
