Message-ID: <2B0E3F215D1AB84DA946C8BEE234CCC97B301493@ORSMSX101.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 19 Nov 2019 03:58:38 +0000
From:   "Ertman, David M" <david.m.ertman@...el.com>
To:     Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>,
        "Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        "nhorman@...hat.com" <nhorman@...hat.com>,
        "sassmann@...hat.com" <sassmann@...hat.com>,
        "jgg@...pe.ca" <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        "Patil, Kiran" <kiran.patil@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [net-next v2 1/1] virtual-bus: Implementation of Virtual Bus

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>
> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2019 3:26 PM
> To: Kirsher, Jeffrey T <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>; davem@...emloft.net;
> gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
> Cc: Ertman, David M <david.m.ertman@...el.com>;
> netdev@...r.kernel.org; linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org;
> nhorman@...hat.com; sassmann@...hat.com; jgg@...pe.ca; Patil, Kiran
> <kiran.patil@...el.com>
> Subject: RE: [net-next v2 1/1] virtual-bus: Implementation of Virtual Bus
> 
> Hi Jeff,
> 
> > From: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
> > Sent: Friday, November 15, 2019 4:34 PM
> >
> > From: Dave Ertman <david.m.ertman@...el.com>
> >
> > This is the initial implementation of the Virtual Bus, virtbus_device
> > and virtbus_driver.  The virtual bus is a software based bus intended
> > to support lightweight devices and drivers and provide matching
> > between them and probing of the registered drivers.
> >
> > The primary purpose of the virual bus is to provide matching services
> > and to pass the data pointer contained in the virtbus_device to the
> > virtbus_driver during its probe call.  This will allow two separate
> > kernel objects to match up and start communication.
> >
> It is fundamental to know that rdma device created by virtbus_driver will be
> anchored to which bus for an non abusive use.
> virtbus or parent pci bus?
> I asked this question in v1 version of this patch.

The model we will be using is a PCI LAN driver that will allocate and
register a virtbus_device.  The virtbus_device will be anchored to the virtual
bus, not the PCI bus.

The virtbus does not have a requirement that elements registering with it
have any association with another outside bus or device.

RDMA is not attached to any bus when it's init is called.  The virtbus_driver
that it will create will be attached to the virtual bus.

The RDMA driver will register a virtbus_driver object.  Its probe will
accept the data pointer from the virtbus_device that the PCI LAN driver
created.

> 
> Also since it says - 'to support lightweight devices', documenting that
> information is critical to avoid ambiguity.
> 
> Since for a while I am working on the subbus/subdev_bus/xbus/mdev [1]
> whatever we want to call it, it overlaps with your comment about 'to support
> lightweight devices'.
> Hence let's make things crystal clear weather the purpose is 'only matching
> service' or also 'lightweight devices'.
> If this is only matching service, lets please remove lightweight devices part..
> 

This is only for matching services for kernel objects, I will work on
phrasing this clearer.

> You additionally need modpost support for id table integration to modifo,
> modprobe and other tools.
> A small patch similar to this one [2] is needed.
> Please include in the series.
> 

modpost support added - thanks for that catch!

> [..]
> 
> > +static const
> > +struct virtbus_dev_id *virtbus_match_id(const struct virtbus_dev_id *id,
> > +					struct virtbus_device *vdev)
> > +{
> > +	while (id->name[0]) {
> > +		if (!strcmp(vdev->name, id->name)) {
> > +			vdev->dev_id = id;
> Matching function shouldn't be modifying the id.

This is not the main id of the virtbus_device.  This is copying the
element in the driver id_table that was matched into the virtbus_device
struct, so that when the virtbus_device struct is passed to the
virtbus_driver's probe, it can access the correct driver_data.

I chose a poor name for this field, I will change the name of this part of the
struct to matched_element and include a comment on what is going on here.

> 
> > +			return id;
> > +		}
> > +		id++;
> > +	}
> > +	return NULL;
> > +}
> > +
> > +#define to_virtbus_dev(x)	(container_of((x), struct virtbus_device,
> dev))
> > +#define to_virtbus_drv(x)	(container_of((x), struct virtbus_driver, \
> > +				 driver))
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * virtbus_match - bind virtbus device to virtbus driver
> > + * @dev: device
> > + * @drv: driver
> > + *
> > + * Virtbus device IDs are always in "<name>.<instance>" format.
> We might have to change this scheme depending on the first question I
> asked in the email about device anchoring.
> 
> > +
> > +struct bus_type virtual_bus_type = {
> > +	.name		= "virtbus",
> > +	.match		= virtbus_match,
> > +	.probe		= virtbus_probe,
> > +	.remove		= virtbus_remove,
> > +	.shutdown	= virtbus_shutdown,
> > +	.suspend	= virtbus_suspend,
> > +	.resume		= virtbus_resume,
> > +};
> Drop the tab alignment.
> 

Dropped :)

> > +
> > +/**
> > + * virtbus_dev_register - add a virtual bus device
> > + * @vdev: virtual bus device to add
> > + */
> > +int virtbus_dev_register(struct virtbus_device *vdev) {
> > +	int ret;
> > +
> > +	if (!vdev)
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> No need for this check.
> Driver shouldn't be called null device registration.

check removed.

> 
> > +
> > +	device_initialize(&vdev->dev);
> > +
> > +	vdev->dev.bus = &virtual_bus_type;
> > +	/* All device IDs are automatically allocated */
> > +	ret = ida_simple_get(&virtbus_dev_ida, 0, 0, GFP_KERNEL);
> > +	if (ret < 0)
> > +		return ret;
> > +
> This is bug, once device_initialize() is done, it must do put_device() and
> follow the release sequence.
> 

changed to use put_device().

> > +	vdev->id = ret;
> > +	dev_set_name(&vdev->dev, "%s.%d", vdev->name, vdev->id);
> > +
> > +	dev_dbg(&vdev->dev, "Registering VirtBus device '%s'\n",
> I think 'virtbus' naming is better instead of 'VirtBus' all over. We don't do "Pci'
> in prints etc.
> 

Changed to virtbus.

> > +		dev_name(&vdev->dev));
> > +
> > +	ret = device_add(&vdev->dev);
> > +	if (!ret)
> > +		return ret;
> > +
> > +	/* Error adding virtual device */
> > +	device_del(&vdev->dev);
> > +	ida_simple_remove(&virtbus_dev_ida, vdev->id);
> > +	vdev->id = VIRTBUS_DEVID_NONE;
> > +
> > +	return ret;
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(virtbus_dev_register);
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * virtbus_dev_unregister - remove a virtual bus device
> > + * vdev: virtual bus device we are removing  */ void
> > +virtbus_dev_unregister(struct virtbus_device *vdev) {
> > +	if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(vdev)) {
> > +		device_del(&vdev->dev);
> > +
> > +		ida_simple_remove(&virtbus_dev_ida, vdev->id);
> I believe this should be done in the release() because above device_del()
> may not ensure that all references to the devices are dropped.
> 

ida_release moved to .release() function.

> > +		vdev->id = VIRTBUS_DEVID_NONE;
> > +	}
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(virtbus_dev_unregister);
> > +
> > +struct virtbus_object {
> > +	struct virtbus_device vdev;
> > +	char name[];
> > +};
> > +
> This shouldn't be needed once. More below.
> 
> > +/**
> > + * virtbus_dev_release - Destroy a virtbus device
> > + * @vdev: virtual device to release
> > + *
> > + * Note that the vdev->data which is separately allocated needs to be
> > + * separately freed on it own.
> > + */
> > +static void virtbus_dev_release(struct device *dev) {
> > +	struct virtbus_object *vo = container_of(dev, struct virtbus_object,
> > +						 vdev.dev);
> > +
> > +	kfree(vo);
> > +}
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * virtbus_dev_alloc - allocate a virtbus device
> > + * @name: name to associate with the vdev
> > + * @data: pointer to data to be associated with this device  */
> > +struct virtbus_device *virtbus_dev_alloc(const char *name, void *data) {
> > +	struct virtbus_object *vo;
> > +
> Data should not be used.
> Caller needs to give a size of the object to allocate.
> I discussed the example in detail with Jason in v1 of this patch. Please refer in
> that email.
> It should be something like this.
> 
> /* size = sizeof(struct i40_virtbus_dev), and it is the first member */
> virtbus_dev_alloc(size)
> {
> 	[..]
> }
> 
> struct i40_virtbus_dev {
> 	struct virbus_dev virtdev;
> 	/*... more fields that you want to share with other driver and to use
> in probe() */ };
> 
> irdma_probe(..)
> {
> 	struct i40_virtbus_dev dev = container_of(dev, struct
> i40_virtbus_dev, dev); }
> 
> [..]
> 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/virtual_bus.h b/include/linux/virtual_bus.h
> > new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..b6f2406180f8
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/include/linux/virtual_bus.h
> > @@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
> > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */
> > +/*
> > + * virtual_bus.h - lightweight software bus
> > + *
> > + * Copyright (c) 2019-20 Intel Corporation
> > + *
> > + * Please see Documentation/driver-api/virtual_bus.rst for more
> > +information  */
> > +
> > +#ifndef _VIRTUAL_BUS_H_
> > +#define _VIRTUAL_BUS_H_
> > +
> > +#include <linux/device.h>
> > +
> > +#define VIRTBUS_DEVID_NONE	(-1)
> > +#define VIRTBUS_NAME_SIZE	20
> > +
> > +struct virtbus_dev_id {
> > +	char name[VIRTBUS_NAME_SIZE];
> > +	u64 driver_data;
> > +};
> > +
> > +struct virtbus_device {
> > +	const char			*name;
> > +	int				id;
> > +	const struct virtbus_dev_id	*dev_id;
> > +	struct device			dev;
> Drop the tab based alignment and just please follow format of virtbus_driver
> you did below.
> > +	void				*data;
> Please drop data. we need only wrapper API virtbus_get/set_drvdata().
> > +};
> 

Data dropped in favor of the device creator using a struct to contain the
virtbus_device and data field, and the virtbus_driver using a container_of()
to get to the data after receiving the virtbus_device struct in probe.

Function virtbus_dev_alloc removed from patch (since the device creator will
need to allocate for the container object).

> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-rdma/20191107160448.20962-1-
> parav@...lanox.com/
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1046991/


Thanks for the feedback!

-Dave E

Powered by blists - more mailing lists