[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v5 7/9] s390x/pci: enable adapter event notification for inte
|
From: |
Pierre Morel |
|
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH v5 7/9] s390x/pci: enable adapter event notification for interpreted devices |
|
Date: |
Tue, 3 May 2022 16:53:55 +0200 |
|
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.3.0 |
On 5/2/22 21:57, Matthew Rosato wrote:
On 5/2/22 7:30 AM, Pierre Morel wrote:
On 5/2/22 11:19, Niklas Schnelle wrote:
On Mon, 2022-05-02 at 09:48 +0200, Pierre Morel wrote:
On 4/22/22 14:10, Matthew Rosato wrote:
On 4/22/22 5:39 AM, Pierre Morel wrote:
On 4/4/22 20:17, Matthew Rosato wrote:
Use the associated kvm ioctl operation to enable adapter event
notification
and forwarding for devices when requested. This feature will be
set up
with or without firmware assist based upon the 'forwarding_assist'
setting.
Signed-off-by: Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@linux.ibm.com>
---
hw/s390x/s390-pci-bus.c | 20 ++++++++++++++---
hw/s390x/s390-pci-inst.c | 40
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
hw/s390x/s390-pci-kvm.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
include/hw/s390x/s390-pci-bus.h | 1 +
include/hw/s390x/s390-pci-kvm.h | 14 ++++++++++++
5 files changed, 100 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/hw/s390x/s390-pci-bus.c b/hw/s390x/s390-pci-bus.c
index 9c02d31250..47918d2ce9 100644
--- a/hw/s390x/s390-pci-bus.c
+++ b/hw/s390x/s390-pci-bus.c
@@ -190,7 +190,10 @@ void s390_pci_sclp_deconfigure(SCCB *sccb)
rc = SCLP_RC_NO_ACTION_REQUIRED;
break;
default:
- if (pbdev->summary_ind) {
+ if (pbdev->interp && (pbdev->fh & FH_MASK_ENABLE)) {
+ /* Interpreted devices were using interrupt
forwarding */
+ s390_pci_kvm_aif_disable(pbdev);
Same remark as for the kernel part.
The VFIO device is already initialized and the action is on this
device, Shouldn't we use the VFIO device interface instead of the KVM
interface?
I don't necessarily disagree, but in v3 of the kernel series I was
told
not to use VFIO ioctls to accomplish tasks that are unique to KVM
(e.g.
AEN interpretation) and to instead use a KVM ioctl.
VFIO_DEVICE_SET_IRQS won't work as-is for reasons described in the
kernel series (e.g. we don't see any of the config space notifiers
because of instruction interpretation) -- as far as I can figure we
could add our own s390 code to QEMU to issue VFIO_DEVICE_SET_IRQS
directly for an interpreted device, but I think would also need
s390-specific changes to VFIO_DEVICE_SET_IRQS accommodate this (e.g.
maybe something like a VFIO_IRQ_SET_DATA_S390AEN where we can then
specify the aen information in vfio_irq_set.data -- or something
else I
Hi,
yes this in VFIO_DEVICE_SET_IRQS is what I think should be done.
haven't though of yet) -- I can try to look at this some more and
see if
I get a good idea.
I understood that the demand was concerning the IOMMU but I may be
wrong.
The IOMMU was an issue, but the request to move the ioctl out of vfio to
kvm was specifically because these ioctl operations were only relevant
for VMs and are not applicable to vfio uses cases outside of
virtualization.
https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20220208185141.GH4160@nvidia.com/
I absolutely agree that KVM specific handling should go through KVM fd.
But as I say here under, AEN is not KVM specific but device specific.
Instruction interpretation is KVM specific.
see later---v
For my opinion, the handling of AEN is not specific to KVM but specific
to the device, for example the code should be the same if Z ever decide
to use XEN or another hypervizor, except for the GISA part but this
part
is already implemented in KVM in a way it can be used from a device
like
in VFIO AP.
Fundamentally, these operations are valid only when you have _both_ a
virtual machine and vfio device. (Yes, you could swap in a new
hypervisor with a new GISA implementation, but at the end of it the
hypervisor must still provide the GISA designation for this to work)
If fh lookup is a concern, one idea that Jason floated was passing the
vfio device fd as an argument to the kvm ioctl (so pass this down on a
kvm ioctl from userspace instead of a fh) and then using a new vfio
external API to get the relevant device from the provided fd.
https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20220208195117.GI4160@nvidia.com/
^------
This looks like a wrong architecture to me.
If something is used to virtualize the I/O of a device it should go
through the device VFIO fd.
If we need a new VFIO external API why not using an extension of the
VFIO_DEVICE_SET_IRQS and use directly the VFIO device to setup interrupts?
see following ----v
@Alex, what do you think?
Regards,
Pierre
As I understand it the question isn't if it is specific to KVM but
rather if it is specific to virtualization. As vfio-pci is also used
for non virtualization purposes such as with DPDK/SPDK or a fully
emulating QEMU, it should only be in VFIO if it is relevant for these
kinds of user-space PCI accesses too. I'm not an AEN expert but as I
understand it, this does forwarding interrupts into a SIE context which
only makes sense for virtualization not for general user-space PCI.
Right, AEN forwarding is only relevant for virtual machines.
Being in VFIO kernel part does not mean that this part should be
called from any user of VFIO in userland.
That is a reason why I did propose an extension and not using the
current implementation of VFIO_DEVICE_SET_IRQS as is.
The reason behind is that the AEN hardware handling is device
specific: we need the Function Handle to program AEN.
You also need the GISA designation which is provided by the kvm or you
also can't program AEN. So you ultimately need both a function handle
that is 'owned' by the device (vfio device fd) and the GISA designation
that is 'owned' by kvm (kvm fd). So there are 2 different "owning" fds
involved.
Yes GISA is a host structure, not device specific but guest specific and
exist very soon during the guest creation, there should be no problem to
retrieve it from a VFIO device IOTCL.
If the API is through KVM which is device agnostic the implementation
in KVM has to search through the system to find the device being
handled to apply AEN on it.
See comment above about instead passing the vfio device fd.
This not the logical way for me and it is a potential source of
problems for future extensions.
^------
There are three different things to modify for the Z-guest to use VFIO:
- IOMMU
- device IRQ
- instruction interpretation, feature negociation
For my opinion only the last one should go directly through the KVM fd.
This should be possible for all architectures.
If it is not possible for Z, the failing path must be adapted it should
not go through another path.
Giving the right IRQ information to the host can be done with a
dedicated IOCTL through the VFIO device fd, just like we need an
extension in the other direction to retrieve the Z specific capabilities.
I am quite sure that other architectures will need some specificity too
for the interrupt or IOMMU handling in the future with increasing
implementation of virtualization in the firmware.
Having a dedicated IOCTL command means it can be called from QEMU and
for guest virtualizuation only then let unused for other userland access.
Regards,
Pierre
--
Pierre Morel
IBM Lab Boeblingen