Re: [PATCH 1/2] s390/cio: Fix vfio-ccw handling of recursive TICs

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 21:43:31 -0500
Eric Farman <farman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 02/25/2019 12:56 PM, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 19:39:40 +0100
> > Eric Farman <farman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> >> @@ -392,7 +419,15 @@ static int ccwchain_calc_length(u64 iova, struct channel_program *cp)
> >>   			return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> >>   		}
> >>   
> >> -		if (!ccw_is_chain(ccw))
> >> +		/*
> >> +		 * We want to keep counting if the current CCW has the
> >> +		 * command-chaining flag enabled, or if it is a TIC CCW
> >> +		 * that loops back into the current chain.  The latter
> >> +		 * is used for device orientation, where the CCW PRIOR to
> >> +		 * the TIC can either jump to the TIC or a CCW immediately
> >> +		 * after the TIC, depending on the results of its operation.
> >> +		 */
> >> +		if (!ccw_is_chain(ccw) && !is_tic_within_range(ccw, iova, cnt))  
> > 
> > AFAIU this is a heuristic. I would prefer this being a heuristics
> > pointed out clearly, along with the explanation of what happens if the
> > heuristics fails.  
> I don't agree that this as a heuristic and I don't see the value of 
> including "what happens" when that answer comes from decades worth of 
> books of various classifications.  Furthermore, I don't see anything in 
> POPS (SA22-7832-11 pp. 15-60 and 15-76/77) that implies we're excluding 
> something.
> 
> Perhaps I misunderstand you.  Could you please explain your continued 
> concern about Status Modifier, because the above academic statement 
> combined with your earlier comment that "all the theoretically possible 
> cases where we could skip over a ccw that would terminate a chain (tic 
> or not chaining) if there was no status modifier" does not help me 
> understand the "heuristic" problem you have here.
> 
> A theoretically possible combination of CCWs is nice in, well, theory. 
> But the examples I discussed with you offline are more likely to result 
> in a Command Reject due to an invalid sequence (or other more painful 
> errors) than a useful channel program for a device to operate upon. 
> Hardly a heuristic.
> 
> > 
> > Your comment is suggesting that the case we care about is TIC pointing
> > to the CCW that immediately precedes it. The code however considers the
> > whole current chain.  
> 
> In practical usage, a backwards TIC of just one CCW is common.  But I'm 
> not aware of anything architecturally that prevents us from jumping 
> farther up the chain via a TIC if we wanted, which is why I looked at 
> the entire range.  If we did go back farther, we would still be most 
> interested in the CCW prior to the TIC because of the possible SM jump.

FWIW, I consider the comment to be fine as-is, and I'd prefer not to
over-complicate the description here.

I'm going to queue this and send a pull request, unless someone points
out something obviously wrong to me.



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Development]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Info]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Linux Media]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux