On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 12:54:42 +0100 Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 17:54:23 +0100 > Halil Pasic <pasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 11:05:29 +0100 > > Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > I think most of the sorting-out-the-operations stuff should be done by > > > > > the hardware itself, and we should not really try to enforce anything > > > > > special in our vfio code. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds very reasonable to me. Does this mean you are against Pierre's > > > > '[PATCH v3 6/6] vfio: ccw: serialize the write system calls' as it does > > > > not let HW sort out stuff, but enforces sequencing? > > > > > > I have not yet had time to look at that, sorry. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For your example, it might be best if a hsch is always accepted and > > > > > send on towards the hardware. > > > > > > > > Nod. > > > > > > > > > Probably best to reflect back -EAGAIN if > > > > > we're currently processing another instruction from another vcpu, so > > > > > that the user space caller can retry. > > > > > > > > Hm, not sure how this works together with your previous sentence. > > > > > > The software layering. We have the kernel layer > > > (drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_*) that interacts with the hardware more or > > > less directly, and the QEMU layer, which does some writes on regions. > > > In the end, the goal is to act on behalf of the guest issuing a > > > ssch/hsch/csch, which is from the guest's view a single instruction. We > > > should not have the individual "instructions" compete with each other > > > so that they run essentially in parallel (kernel layer), but we should > > > also not try to impose an artificial ordering as to when instructions > > > executed by different vcpus are executed (QEMU layer). Therefore, don't > > > try to run an instruction in the kernel when another one is in progress > > > for the same subchannel (exclusivity in the kernel), but retry in QEMU > > > if needed (no ordering between vcpus imposed). > > > > > > In short, don't create strange concurrency issues in the "instruction" > > > handling, but make it possible to execute instructions in a > > > non-predictable order if the guest does not care about enforcing > > > ordering on its side. > > > > > > > I'm neither sold on this, nor am I violently opposing it. Will try to > > meditate on it some more if any spare cycles arise. Currently I don't > > see the benefit of the non-predictable order over plain FCFS. For > > example, let's assume we have a ssch "instruction" that 1 second to > > complete. Since normally ssch instruction does not have to process the > > channel program, and is thus kind of a constant time operation (now we > > do the translation and the pinning as a part of the "instruction), our > > strange guest gets jumpy and does a csch after T+0.2s. And on T+0.8 in > > desperation follows the whole up with a hsch. If I understand your > > proposal correctly, both userspace handlers would spin on -EAGAIN until > > T+1. When ssch is done the csch and the hsch would race for who can > > be the next. I don't quite get the value of that. > > What would happen on real hardware for such a guest? I would expect > that the csch and the hsch would be executed in a random order as well. > Yes, they would be executed in random order, but would not wait until the ssch is done (and especially not wait until the channel program gets translated). AFAIR bot cancel the start function immediately -- if any pending. Furthermore the point where the race is decided is changing the function control bits -- the update needs to be an interlocked one obviously. What I want to say, there is no merit in waiting -- one second in the example. At some point it needs to be decided who is considered first, and artificially procrastinating this decision does not do us any good, because we may end up with otherwise unlikely behavior. > My point is that it is up to the guest to impose an order on the > execution of instructions, if wanted. We should not try to guess > anything; I think that would make the implementation needlessly complex. > I'm not for guessing stuff, but rather for sticking to the architecture. > > > > > > > > > > > Same for ssch, if another ssch is > > > > > already being processed. We *could* reflect cc 2 if the fctl > > > > > bit is already set, but that won't do for csch, so it is > > > > > probably best to have the hardware figure that out in any case. > > > > > > > > > > > > > We just need to be careful about avoiding races if we let hw sort > > > > out things. If an ssch is issued with the start function pending > > > > the correct response is cc 2. > > > > > > But sending it on to the hardware will give us that cc 2, no? > > > > > > > > > > > > If I read the code correctly, we currently reflect -EBUSY and > > > > > not -EAGAIN if we get a ssch request while already processing > > > > > another one. QEMU hands that back to the guest as a cc 2, which > > > > > is not 100% correct. In practice, we don't see this with Linux > > > > > guests due to locking. > > > > > > > > Nod, does not happen because of BQL. We currently do the > > > > user-space counterpart of vfio_ccw_mdev_write() in BQL context or > > > > (i.e. we hold BQL until translation is done and our host ssch() > > > > comes back)? > > > > > > The Linux kernel uses the subchannel lock to enforce exclusivity for > > > subchannel instructions, so we won't see Linux guests issue > > > instructions on different vcpus in parallel, that's what I meant. > > > > > > > That is cool. Yet I think the situation with the BQL is relevant. > > Because while BQL is held, not only IO instructions on a single > > vfio-ccw device are mutually exclusive. AFAIU no other instruction > > QEMU instruction handler can engage. And a store subchannel for > > device A having to wait until the translation for the start > > subchannel on device B is done is not the most scary thing I can > > imagine. > > Yes. But we still need to be able to cope with a userspace that does > not give us those guarantees. > I agree. The point I was trying to make is not that 'We are good, because qemu takes care of it!' on the contrary, I wanted to give voice to my concern that a guest that has a couple of vfio-ccw devices in use could experience performance problems because vfio-ccw holds BQL for long. > > > > > > > > I think -EBUSY is the correct response for ssch while start > > > > pending set. I think we set start pending in QEMU before we issue > > > > 'start command/io request' to the kernel. I don't think -EAGAIN > > > > is a good idea. AFAIU we would expect user-space to loop on > > > > -EAGAIN e.g. at least until the processing of a 'start command' > > > > is done and the (fist) ssch by the host is issued. And then > > > > what? Translate the second channel program issue the second ssch > > > > in the host and probably get a non-zero cc? Or return -EBUSY? Or > > > > keep returning -EAGAIN? > > > > > > My idea was: > > > - return -EAGAIN if we're already processing a channel instruction > > > - continue returning -EBUSY etc. if the instruction gets the > > > respective return code from the hardware > > > > > > So, the second ssch would first get a -EAGAIN and then a -EBUSY if > > > the first ssch is done, but the subchannel is still doing the start > > > function. Just as you would expect when you do a ssch while your > > > last request has not finished yet. > > > > > > > But before you can issue the second ssch you have to do the > > translation for it. And we must assume the IO corresponding to the > > first ssch is not done yet -- so we still need the translated channel > > program of the first ssch. > > Yes, we need to be able to juggle different translated channel programs > if we don't consider this part of the "instruction execution". But if > we return -EAGAIN if the code is currently doing that translation, we > should be fine, no? > As long as you return -EAGAIN we are fine. But AFAIU you proposed to do that until the I/O is submitted to the HW subchannel via ssch(). But that is not the case I'm talking about here. We have already translated the channel program for the first request, submitted it via ssch() and are awaiting an interrupt that tells us the I/O is done. While waiting for this interrupt we get a new ssch request. I understood, you don't want to give -EAGAIN for this one, but make the ssch decide. The problem is you still need the old translated channel program for the interrupt handling, and at the same time you need the new channel program translated as well, before doing the ssch for it in the host. > > That is if we insist on doing the -EBUSY > > based on a return code from the hardware. I'm not sure we end up with > > a big simplification from making the "instructions" mutex on vfio-ccw > > device level in kernel as proposed above. > > I'm not sure we're not talking past each other here... I'm afraid we do. > the "translate > and issue instruction" part should be mutually exclusive; I just don't > want to return -EBUSY, but -EAGAIN, so that userspace knows it should > try again. > I got it. But I wanted to point out, that we need the old channel program *beyond* the "translate and issue instruction". > > But I'm not against it. If > > you have the time to write the patches I will find time to review > > them. > > Probably only on the new year... I think the stuff is better discussed with code at hand. I'm happy to continue this discussion if you think it is useful to you. Otherwise I suggest do it the way you think is the best, and I will try to find and to point out the problems, if any. Regards, Halil
