On Wed, 2021-04-21 at 12:25 +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 20:24:10 +0200
> Eric Farman <farman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Today, the stacked call to vfio_ccw_sch_io_todo() does three
> > things:
> >
> > 1) Update a solicited IRB with CP information, and release the CP
> > if the interrupt was the end of a START operation.
> > 2) Copy the IRB data into the io_region, under the protection of
> > the io_mutex
> > 3) Reset the vfio-ccw FSM state to IDLE to acknowledge that
> > vfio-ccw can accept more work.
> >
> > The trouble is that step 3 is (A) invoked for both solicited and
> > unsolicited interrupts, and (B) sitting after the mutex for step 2.
> > This second piece becomes a problem if it processes an interrupt
> > for a CLEAR SUBCHANNEL while another thread initiates a START,
> > thus allowing the CP and FSM states to get out of sync. That is:
> >
> > CPU 1 CPU 2
> > fsm_do_clear()
> > fsm_irq()
> > fsm_io_request()
> > fsm_io_helper()
> > vfio_ccw_sch_io_todo()
> > fsm_irq()
> > vfio_ccw_sch_io_todo()
> >
> > Let's move the reset of the FSM state to the point where the
> > channel_program struct is cleaned up, which is only done for
> > solicited interrupts anyway.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Eric Farman <farman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_drv.c | 7 +++----
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_drv.c
> > b/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_drv.c
> > index 8c625b530035..e51318f23ca8 100644
> > --- a/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_drv.c
> > +++ b/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_drv.c
> > @@ -94,16 +94,15 @@ static void vfio_ccw_sch_io_todo(struct
> > work_struct *work)
> > (SCSW_ACTL_DEVACT | SCSW_ACTL_SCHACT));
> > if (scsw_is_solicited(&irb->scsw)) {
> > cp_update_scsw(&private->cp, &irb->scsw);
> > - if (is_final && private->state ==
> > VFIO_CCW_STATE_CP_PENDING)
> > + if (is_final && private->state ==
> > VFIO_CCW_STATE_CP_PENDING) {
> > cp_free(&private->cp);
> > + private->state = VFIO_CCW_STATE_IDLE;
> > + }
> > }
> > mutex_lock(&private->io_mutex);
> > memcpy(private->io_region->irb_area, irb, sizeof(*irb));
> > mutex_unlock(&private->io_mutex);
> >
> > - if (private->mdev && is_final)
> > - private->state = VFIO_CCW_STATE_IDLE;
>
> Isn't that re-allowing new I/O requests a bit too early?
Hrm... I guess I don't see what work vfio-ccw has left to do that is
presenting it from carrying on. The copying of the IRB data back into
the io_region seems like a flimsy gate to me. But...
It seems you're (rightly) concerned with userspace doing SSCH + SSCH,
whereas I'v been focused on the CSCH + SSCH sequence. So with this
change, we're inviting the possibility of a second SSCH being able to
be submitted/started before the IRB data for the first SSCH is copied
(and presumably before userspace is tapped to read that data back).
Sigh... I guess that's not the greatest behavior either. Gotta ruminate
on this.
> Maybe remember
> that we had a final I/O interrupt for an I/O request and only change
> the state in this case?
As a local flag within this routine? Hrm... I have entirely too many
"Let's try this" branches that didn't work, but I don't see that one
jumping out at me. Will give it a try.
>
>
> > -
> > if (private->io_trigger)
> > eventfd_signal(private->io_trigger, 1);
> > }
