[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210524181548.4dbe52bc.pasic@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2021 18:15:48 +0200
From: Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, jjherne@...ux.ibm.com, freude@...ux.ibm.com,
borntraeger@...ibm.com, cohuck@...hat.com, mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com,
alex.williamson@...hat.com, kwankhede@...dia.com,
fiuczy@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v16 06/14] s390/vfio-ap: refresh guest's APCB by
filtering APQNs assigned to mdev
On Mon, 10 May 2021 12:44:15 -0400
Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> @@ -1601,8 +1676,10 @@ void vfio_ap_mdev_remove_queue(struct ap_device *apdev)
> mutex_lock(&matrix_dev->lock);
> q = dev_get_drvdata(&apdev->device);
>
> - if (q->matrix_mdev)
> + if (q->matrix_mdev) {
> vfio_ap_mdev_unlink_queue_fr_mdev(q);
> + vfio_ap_mdev_refresh_apcb(q->matrix_mdev);
> + }
>
> vfio_ap_mdev_reset_queue(q, 1);
> dev_set_drvdata(&apdev->device, NULL);
At this point we don't know if !!kvm_busy or kvm_busy AFAICT. If
!!kvm_busy, then we may end up changing a shadow_apcb while an other
thread is in the middle of committing it to the SD satellite. That
would be no good.
Regards,
Halil
Powered by blists - more mailing lists