Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <59db2baa-02ba-e438-db3b-ee06ed6c2fbc@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 Apr 2022 09:00:58 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 11/21] KVM: s390: pci: do initial setup for AEN
 interpretation
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>,
        linux-s390@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     alex.williamson@redhat.com, cohuck@redhat.com,
        schnelle@linux.ibm.com, farman@linux.ibm.com, pmorel@linux.ibm.com,
        hca@linux.ibm.com, gor@linux.ibm.com,
        gerald.schaefer@linux.ibm.com, agordeev@linux.ibm.com,
        svens@linux.ibm.com, frankja@linux.ibm.com, david@redhat.com,
        imbrenda@linux.ibm.com, vneethv@linux.ibm.com,
        oberpar@linux.ibm.com, freude@linux.ibm.com, thuth@redhat.com,
        pasic@linux.ibm.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, corbet@lwn.net,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
References: <20220404174349.58530-1-mjrosato@linux.ibm.com>
 <20220404174349.58530-12-mjrosato@linux.ibm.com>
 <95e46303-931c-ec90-94f3-67ed34383650@linux.ibm.com>
From:   Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@linux.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <95e46303-931c-ec90-94f3-67ed34383650@linux.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 4/14/22 3:20 AM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> 
> 
> Am 04.04.22 um 19:43 schrieb Matthew Rosato:
>> Initial setup for Adapter Event Notification Interpretation for zPCI
>> passthrough devices.  Specifically, allocate a structure for 
>> forwarding of
>> adapter events and pass the address of this structure to firmware.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@linux.ibm.com>
> [...]
>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>> index 156d1c25a3c1..9db6f8080f71 100644
>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>> @@ -47,6 +47,7 @@
>>   #include <asm/fpu/api.h>
>>   #include "kvm-s390.h"
>>   #include "gaccess.h"
>> +#include "pci.h"
>>   #define CREATE_TRACE_POINTS
>>   #include "trace.h"
>> @@ -502,6 +503,14 @@ int kvm_arch_init(void *opaque)
>>           goto out;
>>       }
>> +    if (kvm_s390_pci_interp_allowed()) {
>> +        rc = kvm_s390_pci_init();
>> +        if (rc) {
>> +            pr_err("Unable to allocate AIFT for PCI\n");
>> +            goto out;
>> +        }
>> +    }
>> +
>>       rc = kvm_s390_gib_init(GAL_ISC);
>>       if (rc)
>>           goto out;
> 
> We would not free the aift that was allocated by kvm_s390_pci_init
> in kvm_arch_exit.
> Wouldnt we re-allocate a new aift when we unload/reload kvm forgetting 
> about the old one?

Oops, yes it looks like that's the case.  We must back-pocket a certain 
subset of firmware-shared structures (e.g. zpci_aipb and zpci_aif_sbv) 
as these cannot change for the life of the system once registered with 
firmware; but the aift is a kernel-only structure that should be safe to 
free until next module load.  I think this can be done at the end of 
kvm_s390_pci_aen_exit (with some caller adjustments re: the aift mutex)
> 
> 
>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/pci.c b/arch/s390/kvm/pci.c
> [...]
>> +static int zpci_setup_aipb(u8 nisc)
> [...]
>> +    size = get_order(PAGE_ALIGN(ZPCI_NR_DEVICES *
>> +                        sizeof(struct zpci_gaite)));
> [...]
>> +    if (zpci_set_irq_ctrl(SIC_SET_AENI_CONTROLS, 0, zpci_aipb)) {
>> +        rc = -EIO;
>> +        goto free_gait;
>> +    }
>> +
>> +    return 0;
>> +
>> +free_gait:
>> +    size = get_order(PAGE_ALIGN(ZPCI_NR_DEVICES *
>> +                    sizeof(struct zpci_gaite)));
> 
> size should still be valid here?

Good point

> 
>> +    free_pages((unsigned long)aift->gait, size);
>> +free_sbv:
>> +    airq_iv_release(aift->sbv);
>> +    zpci_aif_sbv = 0;
>> +free_aipb:
>> +    kfree(zpci_aipb);
>> +    zpci_aipb = 0;
>> +
>> +    return rc;
>> +}
>> +
> 
> The remaining parts look sane.