On Mon, 8 Apr 2019 13:01:28 +0200
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 01:16:11 +0200
> Halil Pasic <pasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > The commit 2a2d1382fe9d ("virtio: Add improved queue allocation API")
> > establishes a new way of allocating virtqueues (as a part of the effort
> > that taught DMA to virtio rings).
> >
> > In the future we will want virtio-ccw to use the DMA API as well.
> >
> > Let us switch from the legacy method of allocating virtqueues to
> > vring_create_virtqueue() as the first step into that direction.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c | 27 ++++++++-------------------
> > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c b/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c
> > index 74c328321889..edf4afe2d688 100644
> > --- a/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c
> > +++ b/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c
>
> > @@ -516,17 +512,10 @@ static struct virtqueue *virtio_ccw_setup_vq(struct virtio_device *vdev,
> > err = info->num;
> > goto out_err;
> > }
> > - size = PAGE_ALIGN(vring_size(info->num, KVM_VIRTIO_CCW_RING_ALIGN));
> > - info->queue = alloc_pages_exact(size, GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ZERO);
> > - if (info->queue == NULL) {
> > - dev_warn(&vcdev->cdev->dev, "no queue\n");
> > - err = -ENOMEM;
> > - goto out_err;
> > - }
> > + vq = vring_create_virtqueue(i, info->num, KVM_VIRTIO_CCW_RING_ALIGN,
> > + vdev, true, true, ctx,
>
> This second true means 'may_reduce_num'. Looking at the vring code, it
> seems that this parameter is never checked; the code will try to
> allocate a smaller queue if it can't get the requested size in any
> case... this will probably be a problem for legacy virtio-pci, which
> explicitly sets may_reduce_num to false. (I can try to come up with a
> patch to fix that.)
>
Right.
> > + virtio_ccw_kvm_notify, callback, name);
> >
> > - vq = vring_new_virtqueue(i, info->num, KVM_VIRTIO_CCW_RING_ALIGN, vdev,
> > - true, ctx, info->queue, virtio_ccw_kvm_notify,
> > - callback, name);
> > if (!vq) {
> > /* For now, we fail if we can't get the requested size. */
> > dev_warn(&vcdev->cdev->dev, "no vq\n");
> > @@ -534,15 +523,17 @@ static struct virtqueue *virtio_ccw_setup_vq(struct virtio_device *vdev,
> > goto out_err;
> > }
> >
> > +
>
> Extra blank line :)
>
> > /* Register it with the host. */
> > + queue = virtqueue_get_desc_addr(vq);
> > if (vcdev->revision == 0) {
> > - info->info_block->l.queue = (__u64)info->queue;
> > + info->info_block->l.queue = queue;
> > info->info_block->l.align = KVM_VIRTIO_CCW_RING_ALIGN;
> > info->info_block->l.index = i;
> > info->info_block->l.num = info->num;
>
> You always fill in the size requested by the host, but the actual size
> may be smaller (see above). I don't think that is allowed for revision
> 0 (which implies !virtio-1). You probably need to call
> vring_create_virtqueue with may_reduce_num=false for revision 0 (and
> wait for the generic vring code to be fixed...)
I will have a look into this.
>
> > ccw->count = sizeof(info->info_block->l);
> > } else {
> > - info->info_block->s.desc = (__u64)info->queue;
> > + info->info_block->s.desc = queue;
> > info->info_block->s.index = i;
> > info->info_block->s.num = info->num;
>
> Here, you need to obtain the actual number via
> virtqueue_get_vring_size().
>
Will change as requested.
Thanks for having a look!
Regards,
Halil
> > info->info_block->s.avail = (__u64)virtqueue_get_avail(vq);
>
