On 24/04/2018 13:55, Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 13:49:14 +0200
Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 24/04/2018 11:59, Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 10:40:56 +0200
Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 24/04/2018 08:54, Dong Jia Shi wrote:
* Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2018-04-19 16:48:04 +0200]:
[...]
@@ -94,9 +83,15 @@ static void vfio_ccw_sch_io_todo(struct work_struct *work)
static void vfio_ccw_sch_irq(struct subchannel *sch)
{
struct vfio_ccw_private *private = dev_get_drvdata(&sch->dev);
+ struct irb *irb = this_cpu_ptr(&cio_irb);
inc_irq_stat(IRQIO_CIO);
- vfio_ccw_fsm_event(private, VFIO_CCW_EVENT_INTERRUPT);
+ memcpy(&private->irb, irb, sizeof(*irb));
+
+ WARN_ON(work_pending(&private->io_work));
Hmm, why do we need this?
The current design insure that we have not two concurrent SSCH requests.
How ever I want here to track spurious interrupt.
If we implement cancel, halt or clear requests, we also may trigger (AFAIU)
a second interrupts depending on races between instructions, controller
and device.
You won't get an interrupt for a successful cancel. If you do a
halt/clear, you will make the subchannel halt/clear pending in addition
to start pending and you'll only get one interrupt (if the I/O has
progressed far enough, you won't be able to issue a hsch). The
interesting case is:
- guest does a ssch, we do a ssch on the device
- the guest does a csch before it got the interrupt for the ssch
- before we do the csch on the device, the subchannel is already status
pending with completion of the ssch
- after we issue the csch, we get a second interrupt (for the csch)
We agree.
I think we should present two interrupts to the guest in that case.
Races between issuing ssch/hsch/csch and the subchannel becoming status
pending happen on real hardware as well, we're just more likely to see
them with the vfio layer in between.
Yes, agreed too.
(I'm currently trying to recall what we're doing with unsolicited
interrupts. These are fun wrt deferred cc 1; I'm not sure if there are
cases where we want to present a deferred cc to the guest.)
This patch does not change the current functionalities, only
consolidates the FSM.
The current way to handle unsolicited interrupts is to report them to
the guest
along with the deferred code AFAIU.
My question was more along the line of "do we actually want to
_generate_ a deferred cc1 or unsolicited interrupt, based upon what we
do in our state machine". My guess is no, regardless of the changes you
do in this series.
Also, doing a second ssch before we got final state for the first one
is perfectly valid. Linux just does not do it, so I'm not sure if we
should invest too much time there.
I agree too, it would just make things unnecessary complicated.
I'm a big fan of just throwing everything at the hardware and let it
sort out any races etc. We just need to be sure we don't mix up
interrupts :)
OK, I understand, I can do somthing in the interrupt handler to make
sure we do not loose interrupt IRQs.
I make a proposition in V2.
Thanks,
Pierre
--
Pierre Morel
Linux/KVM/QEMU in Böblingen - Germany
--
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
