On 03/27/2018 12:07 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 15:51:14 +0800
> Dong Jia Shi <bjsdjshi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> * Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx> [2018-03-26 15:59:02 +0200]:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> @@ -131,6 +138,8 @@ static void fsm_io_request(struct vfio_ccw_private *private,
>>>>
>>>> io_region->ret_code = cp_prefetch(&private->cp);
>>>> if (io_region->ret_code) {
>>>> + trace_vfio_ccw_cp_prefetch_failed(get_schid(private),
>>>> + io_region->ret_code);
>>>> cp_free(&private->cp);
>>>> goto err_out;
>>>> }
>>>> @@ -138,6 +147,8 @@ static void fsm_io_request(struct vfio_ccw_private *private,
>>>> /* Start channel program and wait for I/O interrupt. */
>>>> io_region->ret_code = fsm_io_helper(private);
>>>> if (io_region->ret_code) {
>>>> + trace_vfio_ccw_ssch_failed(get_schid(private),
>>>> + io_region->ret_code);
>>>> cp_free(&private->cp);
>>>> goto err_out;
>>>> }
>>>> @@ -145,10 +156,12 @@ static void fsm_io_request(struct vfio_ccw_private *private,
>>>> } else if (scsw->cmd.fctl & SCSW_FCTL_HALT_FUNC) {
>>>> /* XXX: Handle halt. */
>>>> io_region->ret_code = -EOPNOTSUPP;
>>>> + trace_vfio_ccw_halt(get_schid(private));
>>>> goto err_out;
>>>> } else if (scsw->cmd.fctl & SCSW_FCTL_CLEAR_FUNC) {
>>>> /* XXX: Handle clear. */
>>>> io_region->ret_code = -EOPNOTSUPP;
>>>> + trace_vfio_ccw_clear(get_schid(private));
>>>> goto err_out;
>>>
>>> Hmmm.... perhaps better to just trace the function (start/halt/clear)
>>> in any case?
>>>
>> I agree trace the function in any case is good. @Halil, opinion?
See below. I don't really understand the question. Trace the function
means, trace when it was requested on a subch, or trace the outcome
of the request? Seems the question got amended though.
>>
>> But the traces for cp_prefetch() and fsm_io_helper() should also be
>> kept, since they are helpful to debug problem. So I tend to trace the
>> following in any case:
>> - cp_prefetch()
>> - fsm_io_helper()
>> - start
>> - halt
>> - clear
>
> OK, I was unclear :) I'd argue to keep the others, just replace the
> halt/clear tracing with tracing the function.
I'm a bit confused.
My idea was the following: Prior to this patch we had a kind of OK
possibility to trace what we consider the expected and good scenario
using the function tracer and the normal cio stuff. But what I wanted is
to verify that my fix works (problem occurs but is handled more
appropriately) and I've found it difficult to trace this. So the idea was
to introduce trace points which tell us what went wrong. The idea is to
benefit diagnostic of unrecoverable failures and get an idea how often
are we doing extra work recovering recoverable failures.
In this sense halt and clear is something that does not work currently.
When we get proper halt and clear, these trace points were supposed to
become obsolete and get removed. I guess the implementation will
eventually issue csch() and hsch() for the underlying subchannel and and
we should be able to trace those (see drivers/s390/cio/ioasm.c)
Now this is the tricky part. I've read some used to see trace points as
part of the kernel ABI. See e.g. https://lwn.net/Articles/705270/. AFAIU
this is not a concern any more -- but my confidence on this is pretty
low.
So IMHO we have two questions to answer:
* Do we want static trace points (events) for undesirable or concerning
stuff happened (e.g. translation failed, a function we hope we can live
without was supposed to be executed)?
* Do we want static trace points (events) coverage for the normal path
(that is beyond what cio and the function tracer already give us)? What
benefit do we expect if we do want these? (E.g. performance evaluation,
better debugging especially when multiple virtualized subchannels used.)
>
>>
>>>> }
>>>>
[..]
>>>> +DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS(vfio_ccw_notsupp,
>>>> + TP_PROTO(struct subchannel_id schid),
>>>> + TP_ARGS(schid),
>>>> +
>>>> + TP_STRUCT__entry(
>>>> + __field_struct(struct subchannel_id, schid)
>>>> + ),
>>>> +
>>>> + TP_fast_assign(
>>>> + __entry->schid = schid;
>>>> + ),
>>>> +
>>>> + TP_printk("(schid 0.%x.%04X) request not supported",
>>>> + __entry->schid.ssid, __entry->schid.sch_no)
>>>> +);
>>>
>>> Especially as I don't plan to leave this unsupported for too long :)
Sounds great! I don't insist. Especially not if our linux guest tells
us what went wrong. @Dong Jia: What would happen should the guest for
some reason try to do a clear or a halt (e.g. we make it fail here,
guest retries a couple of times and then panicks or gives up on the
device)?
>>>
>>> Just tracing the function is useful now and will stay useful in the
>>> future.
>> If we agree with ideas given above, we could:
>> 1. DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS as vfio_ccw_schid_errno
>> 2. DEFINE_EVENT:
>> vfio_ccw_fam_io_helper
>> vfio_ccw_cp_prefetch
>> vfio_ccw_io_start
>> vfio_ccw_io_clear
>> vfio_ccw_io_halt
>
> Use a vfio_ccw_io_fctl tracepoint instead?
>
That would trace what? A request to perform a basic I/O function
on the virtualized subchannel by issuing the corresponding I/O
instruction to the underlying subchannel?
If that's the case, I think using the trace events from
drivers/s390/cio/ioasm.c (tracing the instructions) may suffice for
the 'good case'.
>> 3. add trace points in coresponding places
>>
>>>
>>> Another idea: Trace the fsm state transitions. Probably something for
>>> an additional patch.
>> Considering Pierre is refactoring the fsm, we can add trace points in
>> that series (or as following on patch).
>
> Yes, while poking around I also wondered whether we should tweak the
> fsm in places. So adding tracepoints there looks like a good idea.
>
How does this relate to normal cio? I don't think cio has such trace
points capturing the state machine transitions. I wonder why? Spontaneously
I would say sounds like something useful.
I'm still pondering what are we trying to achieve.
Regards,
Halil
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
