[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d5ba3528-22db-e06b-80bb-0db40a71e67a@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 11:01:01 +0300
From: Yishai Hadas <yishaih@...dia.com>
To: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
CC: <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, <saeedm@...dia.com>,
<linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>, <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <kuba@...nel.org>, <leonro@...dia.com>,
<kwankhede@...dia.com>, <mgurtovoy@...dia.com>, <maorg@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 mlx5-next 12/14] vfio/mlx5: Implement vfio_pci driver
for mlx5 devices
On 10/19/2021 9:43 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
>
>> +
>> + /* Resuming switches off */
>> + if (((old_state ^ state) & VFIO_DEVICE_STATE_RESUMING) &&
>> + (old_state & VFIO_DEVICE_STATE_RESUMING)) {
>> + /* deserialize state into the device */
>> + ret = mlx5vf_load_state(mvdev);
>> + if (ret) {
>> + vmig->vfio_dev_state = VFIO_DEVICE_STATE_ERROR;
>> + return ret;
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> + /* Resuming switches on */
>> + if (((old_state ^ state) & VFIO_DEVICE_STATE_RESUMING) &&
>> + (state & VFIO_DEVICE_STATE_RESUMING)) {
>> + mlx5vf_reset_mig_state(mvdev);
>> + ret = mlx5vf_pci_new_write_window(mvdev);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ret;
>> + }
> A couple nits here...
>
> Perhaps:
>
> if ((old_state ^ state) & VFIO_DEVICE_STATE_RESUMING)) {
> /* Resuming bit cleared */
> if (old_state & VFIO_DEVICE_STATE_RESUMING) {
> ...
> } else { /* Resuming bit set */
> ...
> }
> }
I tried to avoid nested 'if's as of some previous notes.
The 'resuming' two cases are handled already above so functional wise
the code covers this.
Jason/Alex,
Please recommend what is the preferred way, both options seems to be
fine for me.
>
> Also
>
> u32 flipped_bits = old_state ^ state;
>
> or similar would simplify all these cases slightly.
>
Sure, will use it in V3.
>> +
>> + /* Saving switches on */
>> + if (((old_state ^ state) & VFIO_DEVICE_STATE_SAVING) &&
>> + (state & VFIO_DEVICE_STATE_SAVING)) {
>> + if (!(state & VFIO_DEVICE_STATE_RUNNING)) {
>> + /* serialize post copy */
>> + ret = mlx5vf_pci_save_device_data(mvdev);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ret;
>> + }
>> + }
> This doesn't catch all the cases, and in fact misses the most expected
> case where userspace clears the _RUNNING bit while _SAVING is already
> enabled. Does that mean this hasn't actually been tested with QEMU?
I run QEMU with 'x-pre-copy-dirty-page-tracking=off' as current driver
doesn't support dirty-pages.
As so, it seems that this flow wasn't triggered by QEMU in my save/load
test.
> It seems like there also needs to be a clause in the case where
> _RUNNING switches off to test if _SAVING is already set and has not
> toggled.
>
This can be achieved by adding the below to current code, this assumes
that we are fine with nested 'if's coding.
Seems OK ?
@@ -269,6 +269,7 @@ static int mlx5vf_pci_set_device_state(struct
mlx5vf_pci_core_device *mvdev,
{
struct mlx5vf_pci_migration_info *vmig = &mvdev->vmig;
u32 old_state = vmig->vfio_dev_state;
+ u32 flipped_bits = old_state ^ state;
int ret = 0;
if (old_state == VFIO_DEVICE_STATE_ERROR ||
@@ -277,7 +278,7 @@ static int mlx5vf_pci_set_device_state(struct
mlx5vf_pci_core_device *mvdev,
return -EINVAL;
/* Running switches off */
- if (((old_state ^ state) & VFIO_DEVICE_STATE_RUNNING) &&
+ if ((flipped_bits & VFIO_DEVICE_STATE_RUNNING) &&
(old_state & VFIO_DEVICE_STATE_RUNNING)) {
ret = mlx5vf_pci_quiesce_device(mvdev);
if (ret)
@@ -287,10 +288,18 @@ static int mlx5vf_pci_set_device_state(struct
mlx5vf_pci_core_device *mvdev,
vmig->vfio_dev_state = VFIO_DEVICE_STATE_ERROR;
return ret;
}
+ if (state & VFIO_DEVICE_STATE_SAVING) {
+ /* serialize post copy */
+ ret = mlx5vf_pci_save_device_data(mvdev);
+ if (ret) {
+ vmig->vfio_dev_state =
VFIO_DEVICE_STATE_ERROR;
+ return ret;
+ }
+ }
}
Yishai
Powered by blists - more mailing lists