On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 18:17:16 +0200
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 May 2019 14:26:56 +0200
> Michael Mueller <mimu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > From: Halil Pasic <pasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Before virtio-ccw could get away with not using DMA API for the pieces of
> > memory it does ccw I/O with. With protected virtualization this has to
> > change, since the hypervisor needs to read and sometimes also write these
> > pieces of memory.
> >
> > The hypervisor is supposed to poke the classic notifiers, if these are
> > used, out of band with regards to ccw I/O. So these need to be allocated
> > as DMA memory (which is shared memory for protected virtualization
> > guests).
> >
> > Let us factor out everything from struct virtio_ccw_device that needs to
> > be DMA memory in a satellite that is allocated as such.
> >
> > Note: The control blocks of I/O instructions do not need to be shared.
> > These are marshalled by the ultravisor.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Michael Mueller <mimu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c | 177 +++++++++++++++++++++------------------
> > 1 file changed, 96 insertions(+), 81 deletions(-)
> >
>
> (...)
>
> > @@ -176,6 +180,22 @@ static struct virtio_ccw_device *to_vc_device(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> > return container_of(vdev, struct virtio_ccw_device, vdev);
> > }
> >
> > +static inline void *__vc_dma_alloc(struct virtio_device *vdev, size_t size)
> > +{
> > + return ccw_device_dma_zalloc(to_vc_device(vdev)->cdev, size);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline void __vc_dma_free(struct virtio_device *vdev, size_t size,
> > + void *cpu_addr)
> > +{
> > + return ccw_device_dma_free(to_vc_device(vdev)->cdev, cpu_addr, size);
> > +}
> > +
> > +#define vc_dma_alloc_struct(vdev, ptr) \
> > + ({ptr = __vc_dma_alloc(vdev, sizeof(*(ptr))); })
> > +#define vc_dma_free_struct(vdev, ptr) \
> > + __vc_dma_free(vdev, sizeof(*(ptr)), (ptr))
> > +
>
> I *still* don't like these #defines (and the __vc_dma_* functions), as I
> already commented last time. I think they make it harder to follow the
> code.
>
Sorry! I think we simply forgot to address this comment of yours.
> > static void drop_airq_indicator(struct virtqueue *vq, struct airq_info *info)
> > {
> > unsigned long i, flags;
> > @@ -336,8 +356,7 @@ static void virtio_ccw_drop_indicator(struct virtio_ccw_device *vcdev,
> > struct airq_info *airq_info = vcdev->airq_info;
> >
> > if (vcdev->is_thinint) {
> > - thinint_area = kzalloc(sizeof(*thinint_area),
> > - GFP_DMA | GFP_KERNEL);
> > + vc_dma_alloc_struct(&vcdev->vdev, thinint_area);
>
> Last time I wrote:
>
> "Any reason why this takes a detour via the virtio device? The ccw
> device is already referenced in vcdev, isn't it?
>
> thinint_area = ccw_device_dma_zalloc(vcdev->cdev, sizeof(*thinint_area));
>
> looks much more obvious to me."
>
> It still seems more obvious to me.
>
The reason why I decided to introduce __vc_dma_alloc() back then is
because I had no clarity what do we want to do there. If you take a look
the body of __vc_dma_alloc() changed quite a lot, while I the usage not
so much.
Regarding why is the first argument a pointer struct virtio_device, the
idea was probably to keep the needs to be ZONE_DMA and can use the full
64 bit address space separate. But I abandoned the ideal.
Also vc_dma_alloc_struct() started out more elaborate (I used to manage
a dma_addr_t as well -- see RFC).
I'm not quite sure what is your problem with the these. As far as I
understand, this is another of those matter of taste things. But it ain't
a big deal.
I will change this for v4 as you requested. Again sorry for missing it!
Regards,
Halil
> > if (!thinint_area)
> > return;
> > thinint_area->summary_indicator =
>
