Date:   Tue, 11 Jun 2019 17:00:27 +0200
From:   Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.ibm.com>, borntraeger@...ibm.com,
        alex.williamson@...hat.com, cohuck@...hat.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, frankja@...ux.ibm.com, david@...hat.com,
        schwidefsky@...ibm.com, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com,
        freude@...ux.ibm.com, mimu@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 3/4] s390: ap: implement PAPQ AQIC interception in
 kernel

On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 10:37:55 -0400
Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:

> On 6/7/19 10:29 AM, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 15:38:51 -0400
> > Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:

[..]

> >>> +static void vfio_ap_wait_for_irqclear(int apqn)
> >>> +{
> >>> +	struct ap_queue_status status;
> >>> +	int retry = 5;
> >>> +
> >>> +	do {
> >>> +		status = ap_tapq(apqn, NULL);
> >>> +		switch (status.response_code) {
> >>> +		case AP_RESPONSE_NORMAL:
> >>> +		case AP_RESPONSE_RESET_IN_PROGRESS:
> >>> +			if (!status.irq_enabled)
> >>> +				return;
> >>> +			/* Fall through */
> >>> +		case AP_RESPONSE_BUSY:
> >>> +			msleep(20);
> >>> +			break;
> >>> +		case AP_RESPONSE_Q_NOT_AVAIL:
> >>> +		case AP_RESPONSE_DECONFIGURED:
> >>> +		case AP_RESPONSE_CHECKSTOPPED:
> >>> +		default:
> >>> +			WARN_ONCE(1, "%s: tapq rc %02x: %04x\n", __func__,
> >>> +				  status.response_code, apqn);
> >>> +			return;
> >>
> >> Why not just break out of the loop and just use the WARN_ONCE
> >> outside of the loop?
> >>
> > 
> > AFAIU the idea was to differentiate between got a strange response_code
> > and ran out of retires.
> 
> In both cases, the response code is placed into the message, so one
> should be able to discern the reason in either case. This is not
> critical, just an observation.
> 

I understand, but the message below does say 'could not clear' while
the message above does not. One could infer that information, but I
could not do it without digging. So I think keeping these separate does
have a certain merit to it.

Let's keep it for now. We can change this later if we want.

> > 
> > Actually I suspect that we are fine in case of AP_RESPONSE_Q_NOT_AVAIL,
> >   AP_RESPONSE_DECONFIGURED and AP_RESPONSE_CHECKSTOPPED in a sense that
> > what should be the post-condition of this function is guaranteed to be
> > reached. What do you think?
> 
> That would seem to be the case given those response codes indicate the
> queue is not accessible.
> 
> > 
> > While I think that we can do better here, I see this as something that
> > should be done on top.
> 
> Are you talking about a patch on top? What do you think needs to be
> addressed?
> 

For starters, I'm not sure if the first warning is necessary or even
appropriate. See the paragraph starting with 'Actually I suspect that we
are fine in case ...'.

> > 
> >>> +		}
> >>> +	} while (--retry);
> >>> +
> >>> +	WARN_ONCE(1, "%s: tapq rc %02x: %04x could not clear IR bit\n",
> >>> +		  __func__, status.response_code, apqn);
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> +/**
> >>> + * vfio_ap_free_aqic_resources
> >>> + * @q: The vfio_ap_queue
> >>> + *
> >>> + * Unregisters the ISC in the GIB when the saved ISC not invalid.
> >>> + * Unpin the guest's page holding the NIB when it exist.
> >>> + * Reset the saved_pfn and saved_isc to invalid values.
> >>> + * Clear the pointer to the matrix mediated device.
> >>> + *
> >>> + */
> > 
> > [..]
> > 
> >>> +struct ap_queue_status vfio_ap_irq_disable(struct vfio_ap_queue *q)
> >>> +{
> >>> +	struct ap_qirq_ctrl aqic_gisa = {};
> >>> +	struct ap_queue_status status;
> >>> +	int retries = 5;
> >>> +
> >>> +	do {
> >>> +		status = ap_aqic(q->apqn, aqic_gisa, NULL);
> >>> +		switch (status.response_code) {
> >>> +		case AP_RESPONSE_OTHERWISE_CHANGED:
> >>> +		case AP_RESPONSE_NORMAL:
> >>> +			vfio_ap_wait_for_irqclear(q->apqn);
> >>> +			goto end_free;
> >>> +		case AP_RESPONSE_RESET_IN_PROGRESS:
> >>> +		case AP_RESPONSE_BUSY:
> >>> +			msleep(20);
> >>> +			break;
> >>> +		case AP_RESPONSE_Q_NOT_AVAIL:
> >>> +		case AP_RESPONSE_DECONFIGURED:
> >>> +		case AP_RESPONSE_CHECKSTOPPED:
> >>> +		case AP_RESPONSE_INVALID_ADDRESS:
> >>> +		default:
> >>> +			/* All cases in default means AP not operational */
> >>> +			WARN_ONCE(1, "%s: ap_aqic status %d\n", __func__,
> >>> +				  status.response_code);
> >>> +			goto end_free;
> >>
> >> Why not just break out of the loop instead of repeating the WARN_ONCE
> >> message?
> >>
> > 
> > I suppose the reason is same as above. I'm not entirely happy with this
> > code myself. E.g. why do we do retries here -- shouldn't we just fail the
> > aqic by the guest?
> 
> According to my reading of the code, it looks like the retries are for
> response code AP_RESPONSE_BUSY. Why wouldn't we want to wait until the
> queue was not busy anymore?
> 

Does HW/FW wait or does it present AP_RESPONSE_BUSY? (Rhetoric
question.)  It is for the guest to decide if and how does it wish to
wait or otherwise react to AP_RESPONSE_BUSY. Or am I missing something?

> > 
> > [..]
> > 
> >>> +static int handle_pqap(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >>> +{
> >>> +	uint64_t status;
> >>> +	uint16_t apqn;
> >>> +	struct vfio_ap_queue *q;
> >>> +	struct ap_queue_status qstatus = {
> >>> +			       .response_code = AP_RESPONSE_Q_NOT_AVAIL, };
> >>> +	struct ap_matrix_mdev *matrix_mdev;
> >>> +
> >>> +	/* If we do not use the AIV facility just go to userland */
> >>> +	if (!(vcpu->arch.sie_block->eca & ECA_AIV))
> >>> +		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> >>> +
> >>> +	apqn = vcpu->run->s.regs.gprs[0] & 0xffff;
> >>> +	mutex_lock(&matrix_dev->lock);
> >>> +
> >>> +	if (!vcpu->kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook)
> >>
> >> Wasn't this already checked in patch 2 prior to calling this
> >> function? In fact, doesn't the hook point to this function?
> >>
> > 
> > Let us benevolently call this defensive programming. We are actually
> > in that callback AFAICT, so it sure was set a moment ago, and I guess
> > the client code still holds the kvm.lock so it is guaranteed to stay
> > so unless somebody is playing foul.
> 
> Defensive, but completely unnecessary; however, it doesn't negatively
> affect the logic in the least.
>

I agree it is unnecessary. We can get rid of it later. I'm not too keen
of altering somebody's patch without a really strong reason.
 
> > 
> > We can address this with a patch on top.
> > 

[..]

Regards,
Halil

Powered by blists - more mailing lists