Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] vfio: ccw: Moving state change out of IRQ context
To:     Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
Cc:     Dong Jia Shi <bjsdjshi@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org
References: <1524149293-12658-1-git-send-email-pmorel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1524149293-12658-2-git-send-email-pmorel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180424065442.GV12194@bjsdjshi@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <ac4b7441-2d17-922b-695e-98c01d87cd42@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180424115929.5b5e1ff0.cohuck@redhat.com>
 <f6253047-e364-c240-c4c5-cf186ca75a7d@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180424135533.2e9d03dc.cohuck@redhat.com>
From:   Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 24 Apr 2018 15:07:30 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180424135533.2e9d03dc.cohuck@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Message-Id: <02ca116e-f20c-e59b-e609-70882d5f4afa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 24/04/2018 13:55, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 13:49:14 +0200
> Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> On 24/04/2018 11:59, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 10:40:56 +0200
>>> Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>   
>>>> On 24/04/2018 08:54, Dong Jia Shi wrote:
>>>>> * Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> [2018-04-19 16:48:04 +0200]:
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>      
>>>>>> @@ -94,9 +83,15 @@ static void vfio_ccw_sch_io_todo(struct work_struct *work)
>>>>>>     static void vfio_ccw_sch_irq(struct subchannel *sch)
>>>>>>     {
>>>>>>     	struct vfio_ccw_private *private = dev_get_drvdata(&sch->dev);
>>>>>> +	struct irb *irb = this_cpu_ptr(&cio_irb);
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     	inc_irq_stat(IRQIO_CIO);
>>>>>> -	vfio_ccw_fsm_event(private, VFIO_CCW_EVENT_INTERRUPT);
>>>>>> +	memcpy(&private->irb, irb, sizeof(*irb));
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +	WARN_ON(work_pending(&private->io_work));
>>>>> Hmm, why do we need this?
>>>> The current design insure that we have not two concurrent SSCH requests.
>>>> How ever I want here to track spurious interrupt.
>>>> If we implement cancel, halt or clear requests, we also may trigger (AFAIU)
>>>> a second interrupts depending on races between instructions, controller
>>>> and device.
>>> You won't get an interrupt for a successful cancel. If you do a
>>> halt/clear, you will make the subchannel halt/clear pending in addition
>>> to start pending and you'll only get one interrupt (if the I/O has
>>> progressed far enough, you won't be able to issue a hsch). The
>>> interesting case is:
>>> - guest does a ssch, we do a ssch on the device
>>> - the guest does a csch before it got the interrupt for the ssch
>>> - before we do the csch on the device, the subchannel is already status
>>>     pending with completion of the ssch
>>> - after we issue the csch, we get a second interrupt (for the csch)
>> We agree.
>>
>>> I think we should present two interrupts to the guest in that case.
>>> Races between issuing ssch/hsch/csch and the subchannel becoming status
>>> pending happen on real hardware as well, we're just more likely to see
>>> them with the vfio layer in between.
>> Yes, agreed too.
>>
>>> (I'm currently trying to recall what we're doing with unsolicited
>>> interrupts. These are fun wrt deferred cc 1; I'm not sure if there are
>>> cases where we want to present a deferred cc to the guest.)
>> This patch does not change the current functionalities, only
>> consolidates the FSM.
>> The current way to handle unsolicited interrupts is to report them to
>> the guest
>> along with the deferred code AFAIU.
> My question was more along the line of "do we actually want to
> _generate_ a deferred cc1 or unsolicited interrupt, based upon what we
> do in our state machine". My guess is no, regardless of the changes you
> do in this series.
>
>>> Also, doing a second ssch before we got final state for the first one
>>> is perfectly valid. Linux just does not do it, so I'm not sure if we
>>> should invest too much time there.
>> I agree too, it would just make things unnecessary complicated.
> I'm a big fan of just throwing everything at the hardware and let it
> sort out any races etc. We just need to be sure we don't mix up
> interrupts :)
>
OK, I understand, I can do somthing in the interrupt handler to make 
sure we do not loose interrupt IRQs.

I make a proposition in V2.

Thanks,

Pierre


-- 
Pierre Morel
Linux/KVM/QEMU in Böblingen - Germany