[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <95de8964-af56-7ce0-d79b-20d9f75a292d@nvidia.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 13:46:23 +0300
From: Yishai Hadas <yishaih@...dia.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
CC: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
<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 10/20/2021 7:25 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 11:01:01AM +0300, Yishai Hadas wrote:
>> 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 layout of the if blocks must follow a logical progression of
> the actions toward the chip:
>
> start precopy tracking
> quiesce
> freeze
> stop precopy tracking
> save state to buffer
> clear state buffer
> load state from buffer
> unfreeze
> unquiesce
>
> The order of the if blocks sets the precendence of the requested
> actions, because the bit-field view means userspace can request
> multiple actions concurrently.
>
> When adding the precopy actions into the above list we can see that
> the current patches ordering is backwards, save/load should be
> swapped.
>
> Idiomatically each action needs a single edge triggred predicate
> listed in the right order.
>
> The predicates we define here will become the true ABI for qemu to
> follow to operate the HW
>
> Also, the ordering of the predicates influences what usable state
> transitions exist.
>
> So, it is really important to get this right.
>
>> 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.
> Like this:
>
> if ((flipped_bits & (RUNNING | SAVING)) &&
> ((old_state & (RUNNING | SAVING)) == (RUNNING|SAVING))
> /* enter pre-copy state */
>
> if ((flipped_bits & (RUNNING | SAVING)) &&
> ((old_state & (RUNNING | SAVING)) != (RUNNING|SAVING))
> /* exit pre-copy state */
>
> if ((flipped_bits & (RUNNING | SAVING)) &&
> ((old_state & (RUNNING | SAVING)) == SAVING))
> mlx5vf_pci_save_device_data()
>
> Jason
OK, V3 will follow that.
Note: In the above old_state needs to be the new state.
Thanks,
Yishai
Powered by blists - more mailing lists