Received: by 2002:a25:1985:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id 127csp3948730ybz; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 03:10:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypKP0sdQEXLYi1LgZldHZ8ofKwNcDTuuVeLchOUOSNRxQkDJJysP96TrK+c0TIPNOkKMGSqe X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:4a94:: with SMTP id x20mr24199620eju.306.1588068615544; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 03:10:15 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1588068615; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=DrlNItaCpdS9nYxpL6VQbz3Zlk4zlMXXepdcH7YQgLfbG3y43SRxTsd3n8hUgEL9Vi qymHogvMt/oiVAkSW13ZFgj2Zr0E4OX5fbho4uE/VUE33iF0Med3LOsYvmhVGozLjAlE i9nOjC764mAoV7H59zgn1SK7DCV9ZGGAg0ucJPHIQKgagDmN7sZ+MMgR3LSq+wIibk3U 46P4WDUU/LJvuFOSUNsxx3Hyy04R8cbwqDIZghDaJauHOiFG8HUwBgFqv5nE7lGH3lio fSZfCzFsp6gd7BOdrg+rbI6z/yLYyuz1QJIZBVDblAhjfgVSDOckYDSnAHU1E1r0wNqf x8Dg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :organization:references:in-reply-to:message-id:subject:cc:to:from :date; bh=HybJeMRuwrt3DY/ntz3GJl6AuUUFr67fYjdI1ZdeVHU=; b=N7ULnaH53mQftEycHhCLMjw3tUmio40UmHiJ7YDN5lkSPff/O00cJ6fFV9mjlBppRG JW6Wbdi8ZlmLu8PVfJp8KzoDpmOfLHzypEGkCRoMXbdZFEv2tYkbnJXPS8bsL7GZnqj5 qEWJb13zhSaxsGUCAu0IcnBKC6+mz/seo/BnGaL/XbfSfBMOzUJLGH3bky21hkEkVZhu el6h3u1AKgI3/MmdY69m9bJjUoaNUcNk+rJPy2sNclB12JQY/BeZ+H2T4e2NyTAvKeqe wb8Gv1tOpWynoWOhWy/RD9F9e/3/ekFmHLILSutFC/sQ1TmCXotF4diWcSLID7z2PWO8 FJRg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=ibm.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id g2si1313213edp.611.2020.04.28.03.09.52; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 03:10:15 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=ibm.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727841AbgD1KIa (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 28 Apr 2020 06:08:30 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:20610 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726932AbgD1KI3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Apr 2020 06:08:29 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098420.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 03SA1fVx113549; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 06:08:26 -0400 Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 30pgnxujvf-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 28 Apr 2020 06:08:26 -0400 Received: from m0098420.ppops.net (m0098420.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 03SA1kTZ114104; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 06:08:26 -0400 Received: from ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com (63.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.99]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 30pgnxuju1-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 28 Apr 2020 06:08:26 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id 03SA5hsK003543; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 10:08:24 GMT Received: from b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay10.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.195]) by ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 30mcu6wvxt-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 28 Apr 2020 10:08:24 +0000 Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.59]) by b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 03SA8Lii65208416 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 28 Apr 2020 10:08:21 GMT Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A6D0A4040; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 10:08:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA56BA404D; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 10:08:20 +0000 (GMT) Received: from oc2783563651 (unknown [9.145.145.25]) by d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 10:08:20 +0000 (GMT) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2020 12:07:26 +0200 From: Halil Pasic To: Tony Krowiak Cc: Harald Freudenberger , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, cohuck@redhat.com, mjrosato@linux.ibm.com, pmorel@linux.ibm.com, alex.williamson@redhat.com, kwankhede@nvidia.com, jjherne@linux.ibm.com, fiuczy@linux.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 01/15] s390/vfio-ap: store queue struct in hash table for quick access Message-ID: <20200428120726.3f769ce3.pasic@linux.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <6ea12752-d23f-abe4-8d5f-3e7738984576@linux.ibm.com> References: <20200407192015.19887-1-akrowiak@linux.ibm.com> <20200407192015.19887-2-akrowiak@linux.ibm.com> <20200424055732.7663896d.pasic@linux.ibm.com> <20200427171739.76291a74.pasic@linux.ibm.com> <6ea12752-d23f-abe4-8d5f-3e7738984576@linux.ibm.com> Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.11.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.138,18.0.676 definitions=2020-04-28_05:2020-04-27,2020-04-28 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 impostorscore=0 clxscore=1015 mlxscore=0 priorityscore=1501 lowpriorityscore=0 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 spamscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2003020000 definitions=main-2004280082 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 27 Apr 2020 17:48:58 -0400 Tony Krowiak wrote: > > > On 4/27/20 11:17 AM, Halil Pasic wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Apr 2020 15:05:23 +0200 > > Harald Freudenberger wrote: > > > >> On 24.04.20 05:57, Halil Pasic wrote: > >>> On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 15:20:01 -0400 > >>> Tony Krowiak wrote: > >>> > >>>> Rather than looping over potentially 65535 objects, let's store the > >>>> structures for caching information about queue devices bound to the > >>>> vfio_ap device driver in a hash table keyed by APQN. > >>> @Harald: > >>> Would it make sense to make the efficient lookup of an apqueue base > >>> on its APQN core AP functionality instead of each driver figuring it out > >>> on it's own? > >>> > >>> If I'm not wrong the zcrypt device/driver(s) must the problem of > >>> looking up a queue based on its APQN as well. > >>> > >>> For instance struct ep11_cprb has a target_id filed > >>> (arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/zcrypt.h). > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Halil > >> Hi Halil > >> > >> no, the zcrypt drivers don't have this problem. They build up their own device object which > >> includes a pointer to the base ap device. > > I'm a bit confused. Doesn't your code loop first trough the ap_card > > objects to find the APID portion of the APQN, and then loop the queue > > list of the matching card to find the right ap_queue object? Or did I > > miss something? Isn't that what _zcrypt_send_ep11_cprb() does? Can you > > point me to the code that avoids the lookup (by apqn) for zcrypt? > > The code you reference, _zcrypt_send_ep11_cprb(), does loop through > each queue associated with each card, but it doesn't appear to be > looking for > a queue with a particular APQN. It appears to be looking for a queue > meeting a specific set of conditions. At least that's my take after > taking a very > brief look at the code, so I'm not sure that applies here. > One of the possible conditions is that the APQN is in the targets array. Please have another look at the code below, is_desired_ep11_queue() and is_desired_ep11_card() do APQI and APID part of the check respectively: for_each_zcrypt_card(zc) { /* Check for online EP11 cards */ if (!zc->online || !(zc->card->functions & 0x04000000)) continue; /* Check for user selected EP11 card */ if (targets && !is_desired_ep11_card(zc->card->id, target_num, targets)) continue; /* check if device node has admission for this card */ if (!zcrypt_check_card(perms, zc->card->id)) continue; /* get weight index of the card device */ weight = speed_idx_ep11(func_code) * zc->speed_rating[SECKEY]; if (zcrypt_card_compare(zc, pref_zc, weight, pref_weight)) continue; for_each_zcrypt_queue(zq, zc) { /* check if device is online and eligible */ if (!zq->online || !zq->ops->send_ep11_cprb || (targets && !is_desired_ep11_queue(zq->queue->qid, target_num, targets))) Yes the size of targets may or may not be 1 (example for size == 1 is the invocation form ep11_cryptsingle()) and the respective costs depend on the usual size of the array. Since the goal of the whole exercise seems to be to pick a single queue, and we settle with the first suitable (first not in the input array, but in our lists) that is suitable, I assumed we wouldn't need many hashtable lookups. Regards, Halil > > > > > > If you look at the new function of vfio_ap_get_queue(unsigned long apqn) > > it basically about finding the queue based on the apqn, with the > > difference that it is vfio specific. > > > > Regards, > > Halil > > > >> However, this is not a big issue, as the ap_bus holds a list of ap_card objects and within each > >> ap_card object there exists a list of ap_queues. > > > > > > >