On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 10:54:24AM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 25 2022, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 10:44:15AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> >> This patch tries to implement the synchronize_cbs() for ccw. For the
> >> vring_interrupt() that is called via virtio_airq_handler(), the
> >> synchronization is simply done via the airq_info's lock. For the
> >> vring_interrupt() that is called via virtio_ccw_int_handler(), a per
> >> device spinlock for irq is introduced ans used in the synchronization
> >> method.
> >>
> >> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: Halil Pasic <pasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >
> > This is the only one that is giving me pause. Halil, Cornelia,
> > should we be concerned about the performance impact here?
> > Any chance it can be tested?
>
> We can have a bunch of devices using the same airq structure, and the
> sync cb creates a choke point, same as registering/unregistering.
BTW can callbacks for multiple VQs run on multiple CPUs at the moment?
this patch serializes them on a spinlock.
> If
> invoking the sync cb is a rare operation (same as (un)registering), it
> should not affect interrupt processing for other devices too much, but
> it really should be rare.
>
> For testing, you would probably want to use a setup with many devices
> that share the same airq area (you can fit a lot of devices if they have
> few queues), generate traffic on the queues, and then do something that
> triggers the callback (adding/removing a new device in a loop?)
>
> I currently don't have such a setup handy; Halil, would you be able to
> test that?
>
> >
> >> ---
> >> drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c b/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c
> >> index d35e7a3f7067..c19f07a82d62 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c
> >> @@ -62,6 +62,7 @@ struct virtio_ccw_device {
> >> unsigned int revision; /* Transport revision */
> >> wait_queue_head_t wait_q;
> >> spinlock_t lock;
> >> + spinlock_t irq_lock;
> >> struct mutex io_lock; /* Serializes I/O requests */
> >> struct list_head virtqueues;
> >> bool is_thinint;
> >> @@ -984,6 +985,27 @@ static const char *virtio_ccw_bus_name(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> >> return dev_name(&vcdev->cdev->dev);
> >> }
> >>
> >> +static void virtio_ccw_synchronize_cbs(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> >> +{
> >> + struct virtio_ccw_device *vcdev = to_vc_device(vdev);
> >> + struct airq_info *info = vcdev->airq_info;
> >> +
> >> + /*
> >> + * Synchronize with the vring_interrupt() called by
> >> + * virtio_ccw_int_handler().
> >> + */
> >> + spin_lock(&vcdev->irq_lock);
> >> + spin_unlock(&vcdev->irq_lock);
> >> +
> >> + if (info) {
> >> + /*
> >> + * Synchronize with the vring_interrupt() with airq indicator
> >> + */
> >> + write_lock(&info->lock);
> >> + write_unlock(&info->lock);
> >> + }
>
> I think we can make this an either/or operation (devices will either use
> classic interrupts or adapter interrupts)?
>
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> static const struct virtio_config_ops virtio_ccw_config_ops = {
> >> .get_features = virtio_ccw_get_features,
> >> .finalize_features = virtio_ccw_finalize_features,
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
