On 2020/8/4 下午5:31, Zhu, Lingshan wrote:
On 8/4/2020 4:51 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
On 2020/7/31 下午2:55, Zhu Lingshan wrote:
This patch introduce a set of functions for setup/unsetup
and update irq offloading respectively by register/unregister
and re-register the irq_bypass_producer.
With these functions, this commit can setup/unsetup
irq offloading through setting DRIVER_OK/!DRIVER_OK, and
update irq offloading through SET_VRING_CALL.
Signed-off-by: Zhu Lingshan <lingshan.zhu@xxxxxxxxx>
Suggested-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/vhost/Kconfig | 1 +
drivers/vhost/vdpa.c | 79
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
2 files changed, 79 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/vhost/Kconfig b/drivers/vhost/Kconfig
index d3688c6afb87..587fbae06182 100644
--- a/drivers/vhost/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/vhost/Kconfig
@@ -65,6 +65,7 @@ config VHOST_VDPA
tristate "Vhost driver for vDPA-based backend"
depends on EVENTFD
select VHOST
+ select IRQ_BYPASS_MANAGER
depends on VDPA
help
This kernel module can be loaded in host kernel to accelerate
diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vdpa.c b/drivers/vhost/vdpa.c
index df3cf386b0cd..278ea2f00172 100644
--- a/drivers/vhost/vdpa.c
+++ b/drivers/vhost/vdpa.c
@@ -115,6 +115,55 @@ static irqreturn_t vhost_vdpa_config_cb(void
*private)
return IRQ_HANDLED;
}
+static void vhost_vdpa_setup_vq_irq(struct vhost_vdpa *v, u16 qid)
+{
+ struct vhost_virtqueue *vq = &v->vqs[qid];
+ const struct vdpa_config_ops *ops = v->vdpa->config;
+ struct vdpa_device *vdpa = v->vdpa;
+ int ret, irq;
+
+ spin_lock(&vq->call_ctx.ctx_lock);
+ irq = ops->get_vq_irq(vdpa, qid);
+ if (!vq->call_ctx.ctx || irq < 0) {
+ spin_unlock(&vq->call_ctx.ctx_lock);
+ return;
+ }
+
+ vq->call_ctx.producer.token = vq->call_ctx.ctx;
+ vq->call_ctx.producer.irq = irq;
+ ret = irq_bypass_register_producer(&vq->call_ctx.producer);
+ spin_unlock(&vq->call_ctx.ctx_lock);
+}
+
+static void vhost_vdpa_unsetup_vq_irq(struct vhost_vdpa *v, u16 qid)
+{
+ struct vhost_virtqueue *vq = &v->vqs[qid];
+
+ spin_lock(&vq->call_ctx.ctx_lock);
+ irq_bypass_unregister_producer(&vq->call_ctx.producer);
Any reason for not checking vq->call_ctx.producer.irq as below here?
we only need ctx as a token to unregister vq from irq bypass manager, if vq->call_ctx.producer.irq is 0, means it is a unused or disabled vq,
This is not how the code is wrote? See above you only check whether irq
is negative, irq 0 seems acceptable.
+ spin_lock(&vq->call_ctx.ctx_lock);
+ irq = ops->get_vq_irq(vdpa, qid);
+ if (!vq->call_ctx.ctx || irq < 0) {
+ spin_unlock(&vq->call_ctx.ctx_lock);
+ return;
+ }
+
+ vq->call_ctx.producer.token = vq->call_ctx.ctx;
+ vq->call_ctx.producer.irq = irq;
+ ret = irq_bypass_register_producer(&vq->call_ctx.producer);
+ spin_unlock(&vq->call_ctx.ctx_lock);
no harm if we
perform an unregister on it.
+ spin_unlock(&vq->call_ctx.ctx_lock);
+}
+
+static void vhost_vdpa_update_vq_irq(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq)
+{
+ spin_lock(&vq->call_ctx.ctx_lock);
+ /*
+ * if it has a non-zero irq, means there is a
+ * previsouly registered irq_bypass_producer,
+ * we should update it when ctx (its token)
+ * changes.
+ */
+ if (!vq->call_ctx.producer.irq) {
+ spin_unlock(&vq->call_ctx.ctx_lock);
+ return;
+ }
+
+ irq_bypass_unregister_producer(&vq->call_ctx.producer);
+ vq->call_ctx.producer.token = vq->call_ctx.ctx;
+ irq_bypass_register_producer(&vq->call_ctx.producer);
+ spin_unlock(&vq->call_ctx.ctx_lock);
+}
I think setup_irq() and update_irq() could be unified with the
following logic:
irq_bypass_unregister_producer(&vq->call_ctx.producer);
irq = ops->get_vq_irq(vdpa, qid);
if (!vq->call_ctx.ctx || irq < 0) {
spin_unlock(&vq->call_ctx.ctx_lock);
return;
}
vq->call_ctx.producer.token = vq->call_ctx.ctx;
vq->call_ctx.producer.irq = irq;
ret = irq_bypass_register_producer(&vq->call_ctx.producer);
Yes, this code piece can do both register and update. Though it's rare to call undate_irq(), however
setup_irq() is very likely to be called for every vq, so this may cause several rounds of useless irq_bypass_unregister_producer().
I'm not sure I get this but do you have a case for this?
is it worth for simplify the code?
Less code(bug).
+
static void vhost_vdpa_reset(struct vhost_vdpa *v)
{
struct vdpa_device *vdpa = v->vdpa;
@@ -155,11 +204,15 @@ static long vhost_vdpa_set_status(struct
vhost_vdpa *v, u8 __user *statusp)
{
struct vdpa_device *vdpa = v->vdpa;
const struct vdpa_config_ops *ops = vdpa->config;
- u8 status;
+ u8 status, status_old;
+ int nvqs = v->nvqs;
+ u16 i;
if (copy_from_user(&status, statusp, sizeof(status)))
return -EFAULT;
+ status_old = ops->get_status(vdpa);
+
/*
* Userspace shouldn't remove status bits unless reset the
* status to 0.
@@ -169,6 +222,15 @@ static long vhost_vdpa_set_status(struct
vhost_vdpa *v, u8 __user *statusp)
ops->set_status(vdpa, status);
+ /* vq irq is not expected to be changed once DRIVER_OK is set */
Let's move this comment to the get_vq_irq bus operation.
OK, can do!
+ if ((status & VIRTIO_CONFIG_S_DRIVER_OK) && !(status_old &
VIRTIO_CONFIG_S_DRIVER_OK))
+ for (i = 0; i < nvqs; i++)
+ vhost_vdpa_setup_vq_irq(v, i);
+
+ if ((status_old & VIRTIO_CONFIG_S_DRIVER_OK) && !(status &
VIRTIO_CONFIG_S_DRIVER_OK))
+ for (i = 0; i < nvqs; i++)
+ vhost_vdpa_unsetup_vq_irq(v, i);
+
return 0;
}
@@ -332,6 +394,7 @@ static long vhost_vdpa_set_config_call(struct
vhost_vdpa *v, u32 __user *argp)
return 0;
}
+
static long vhost_vdpa_vring_ioctl(struct vhost_vdpa *v, unsigned
int cmd,
void __user *argp)
{
@@ -390,6 +453,7 @@ static long vhost_vdpa_vring_ioctl(struct
vhost_vdpa *v, unsigned int cmd,
cb.private = NULL;
}
ops->set_vq_cb(vdpa, idx, &cb);
+ vhost_vdpa_update_vq_irq(vq);
break;
case VHOST_SET_VRING_NUM:
@@ -765,6 +829,18 @@ static int vhost_vdpa_open(struct inode *inode,
struct file *filep)
return r;
}
+static void vhost_vdpa_clean_irq(struct vhost_vdpa *v)
+{
+ struct vhost_virtqueue *vq;
+ int i;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < v->nvqs; i++) {
+ vq = &v->vqs[i];
+ if (vq->call_ctx.producer.irq)
+ irq_bypass_unregister_producer(&vq->call_ctx.producer);
+ }
+}
Why not using vhost_vdpa_unsetup_vq_irq()?
IMHO, in this cleanup phase, the device is almost dead, user space won't change ctx anymore, so I think we don't need to check ctx or irq,
But you check irq here? For ctx, irq_bypass_unregister_producer() can do
the check instead of us.
Thanks
can just unregister it.
Thanks!
Thanks
+
static int vhost_vdpa_release(struct inode *inode, struct file
*filep)
{
struct vhost_vdpa *v = filep->private_data;
@@ -777,6 +853,7 @@ static int vhost_vdpa_release(struct inode
*inode, struct file *filep)
vhost_vdpa_iotlb_free(v);
vhost_vdpa_free_domain(v);
vhost_vdpa_config_put(v);
+ vhost_vdpa_clean_irq(v);
vhost_dev_cleanup(&v->vdev);
kfree(v->vdev.vqs);
mutex_unlock(&d->mutex);
