* Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> ioeventfd is way provided by KVM to receive notifications about
> reads and writes to PIO and MMIO areas within the guest.
>
> Such notifications are usefull if all we need to know is that
> a specific area of the memory has been changed, and we don't need
> a heavyweight exit to happen.
>
> The implementation uses epoll to scale to large number of ioeventfds.
Nice! :-)
> +struct ioevent {
> + u64 start;
> + u8 len;
If that's an mmio address then it might be worth naming it
ioevent->mmio_addr, ioevent->mmio_end.
> + void (*ioevent_callback_fn)(struct kvm *kvm, void *ptr);
Please only 'fn', we already know this is an ioevent.
> + struct kvm *kvm;
> + void *ptr;
what is the purpose of the pointer?
AFAICS it the private data of the callback function. In such cases
please name them in a harmonizing fashion, such as:
void (*fn)(struct kvm *kvm, void *data);
struct kvm *fn_kvm;
void *fn_data;
Also, will tools/kvm/ ever run with multiple 'struct kvm' instances
present?
A sidenote: i think 'struct kvm *kvm' was a naming mistake - it's way
too aspecific, it tells us nothing. What is a 'kvm'?
A much better name would be 'struct machine *machine', hm? Even if
everyone agrees this would be a separate patch, obviously.
Also, can ioevent->kvm *ever* be different from the kvm that the
mmio-event receiving vcpu thread is associated with? If not then the
fn_kvm field is really superfluous - we get the machine from the mmio
handler and can pass it down to the callback function.
> + int event_fd;
'fd'
> + u64 datamatch;
what's a datamatch? 'cookie'? 'key'?
> +
> + struct list_head list_used;
just 'list' is enough i think - it's obvious that ioevent->list is a
list of ioevents, right?
> + kvm_ioevent = (struct kvm_ioeventfd) {
> + .addr = ioevent->start,
> + .len = ioevent->len,
Do you see how confusing the start/len naming is? Here you are
assigning a 'start' field to an 'addr' and the reviewer is kept
wondering whether that's right. If it was ->mmio_addr then it would
be a lot more obvious what is going on.
> +static void *ioeventfd__thread(void *param)
> +{
> + for (;;) {
> + int nfds, i;
> +
> + nfds = epoll_wait(epoll_fd, events, IOEVENTFD_MAX_EVENTS, -1);
> + for (i = 0; i < nfds; i++) {
> + u64 tmp;
> + struct ioevent *ioevent;
> +
> + ioevent = events[i].data.ptr;
> +
> + if (read(ioevent->event_fd, &tmp, sizeof(tmp)) < 0)
> + die("Failed reading event");
> +
> + ioevent->ioevent_callback_fn(ioevent->kvm, ioevent->ptr);
> + }
> + }
> +
> + return NULL;
> +}
> +
> +void ioeventfd__start(void)
> +{
> + pthread_t thread;
> +
> + pthread_create(&thread, NULL, ioeventfd__thread, NULL);
> +}
Shouldnt this use the thread pool, so that we know about each and
every worker thread we have started, in one central place?
(This might have relevance, see the big-reader-lock mail i sent
earlier today.)
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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
