On 1/13/21 9:50 PM, Halil Pasic wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 16:41:27 -0500
Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 1/11/21 2:17 PM, Halil Pasic wrote:
On Tue, 22 Dec 2020 20:15:56 -0500
Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Let's create links between each queue device bound to the vfio_ap device
driver and the matrix mdev to which the queue's APQN is assigned. The idea
is to facilitate efficient retrieval of the objects representing the queue
devices and matrix mdevs as well as to verify that a queue assigned to
a matrix mdev is bound to the driver.
The links will be created as follows:
* When the queue device is probed, if its APQN is assigned to a matrix
mdev, the structures representing the queue device and the matrix mdev
will be linked.
* When an adapter or domain is assigned to a matrix mdev, for each new
APQN assigned that references a queue device bound to the vfio_ap
device driver, the structures representing the queue device and the
matrix mdev will be linked.
The links will be removed as follows:
* When the queue device is removed, if its APQN is assigned to a matrix
mdev, the structures representing the queue device and the matrix mdev
will be unlinked.
* When an adapter or domain is unassigned from a matrix mdev, for each
APQN unassigned that references a queue device bound to the vfio_ap
device driver, the structures representing the queue device and the
matrix mdev will be unlinked.
Signed-off-by: Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[..]
+
int vfio_ap_mdev_probe_queue(struct ap_device *apdev)
{
struct vfio_ap_queue *q;
@@ -1324,9 +1404,13 @@ int vfio_ap_mdev_probe_queue(struct ap_device *apdev)
q = kzalloc(sizeof(*q), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!q)
return -ENOMEM;
+ mutex_lock(&matrix_dev->lock);
dev_set_drvdata(&apdev->device, q);
q->apqn = to_ap_queue(&apdev->device)->qid;
q->saved_isc = VFIO_AP_ISC_INVALID;
+ vfio_ap_queue_link_mdev(q);
+ mutex_unlock(&matrix_dev->lock);
+
Does the critical section have to include more than just
vfio_ap_queue_link_mdev()? Did we need the critical section
before this patch?
We did not need the critical section before this patch because
the only function that retrieved the vfio_ap_queue via the queue
device's drvdata was the remove callback. I included the initialization
of the vfio_ap_queue object under lock because the
vfio_ap_find_queue() function retrieves the vfio_ap_queue object from
the queue device's drvdata so it might be advantageous to initialize
it under the mdev lock. On the other hand, I can't come up with a good
argument to change this.
I was asking out of curiosity, not because I want it changed. I was
also wondering if somebody could see a partially initialized device:
we even first call dev_set_drvdata() and only then finish the
initialization. Before 's390/vfio-ap: use new AP bus interface to search
for queue devices', which is the previous patch, we had the klist code
in between, which uses spinlocks, which I think ensure, that all
effects of probe are seen when we get the queue from
vfio_ap_find_queue(). But with patch 4 in place that is not the case any
more. Or am I wrong?
You are correct insofar as patch 4 replaces the driver_find_device()
function call with a call to AP bus's ap_get_qdev() function which
does not use spinlocks. Without digging deeply into the probe call
chain I do not know whether or not the use of spinlocks by the klist
code ensures all effects of the probe are seen when we get the
queue from vfio_ap_find_queue(). What I'm sure about is that since
both vfio_ap_find_queue() and the setting of the drvdata in the
probe function are always done under the mdev lock, consistency
should be maintained. What I did decide when thinking about your
previous review comment is that we should probably initialize the
vfio_ap_queue object before setting the drvdata, so I made that change.
Regards,
Halil
