Re: [PATCH 04/10] vfio: ccw: replace IO_REQ event with SSCH_REQ event

Cornelia Huck
2018-05-22T15:38:31Z

[still backlog processing...]

On Thu, 3 May 2018 14:06:51 +0200
Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> On 30/04/2018 17:30, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 15:52:19 +0200
> > Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 25/04/2018 10:41, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 16:48:07 +0200
> >>> Pierre Morel<pmorel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_private.h b/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_private.h
> >>>> index 3284e64..93aab87 100644
> >>>> --- a/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_private.h
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_private.h
> >>>> @@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ enum vfio_ccw_state {
> >>>> */
> >>>> enum vfio_ccw_event {
> >>>> VFIO_CCW_EVENT_NOT_OPER,
> >>>> - VFIO_CCW_EVENT_IO_REQ,
> >>>> + VFIO_CCW_EVENT_SSCH_REQ,
> >>>> VFIO_CCW_EVENT_INTERRUPT,
> >>>> VFIO_CCW_EVENT_SCH_EVENT,
> >>>> /* last element! */
> >>> I don't think we should separate the ssch handling. The major
> >>> difference to halt/clear is that it needs channel program translation.
> >>> Everything else (issuing the instruction and processing the interrupt)
> >>> are basically the same. If we just throw everything at the hardware
> >>> and let the host's channel subsystem figure it out, we already should
> >>> be fine with regard to most of the races.
> >> We must test at a moment or another the kind of request we do,
> >> cancel, halt and clear only need the subchannel id in register 1 and as
> >> you said are much more direct to implement.
> >>
> >> If we do not separate them here, we need a switch in the "do_io_request"
> >> function.
> >> Is it what you mean?
> > Yes. Most of the handling should be the same for any function.
>
> I really don't know, the 4 functions are quite different.
>
> - SSCH uses an ORB, and has a quite long kernel execution time for VFIO
> - there is a race between SSCH and the others instructions
> - XSCH makes subchannel no longer start pending, also reset the busy
> indications
> - CSCH cancels both SSCH and HSCH instruction, and perform path management
> - HSCH has different busy (entry) conditions

Roughly speaking, we have two categories: An asynchronous function is
performed (SSCH, HSCH, CSCH) or not (XSCH). So I would split out XSCH
in any case.

SSCH, HSCH, CSCH all perform path management. I see them as kind of
escalating (i.e. CSCH 'beats' HSCH which 'beats' SSCH). I think they
are all similar enough, though, as we can call through to the real
hardware and have it sorted out there.

Looking through the channel I/O instructions:
- RSCH should be handled with SSCH (as a special case).
- MSCH should also be handled in the long run, STSCH as well.
- SCHM is interesting, as it's not per-subchannel. We have some basic
handling of the instruction in QEMU, but it only emulates some ssch
counters and completely lacks support for the other fields.
- IIRC, there's also a CHSC command dealing with channel monitoring. We
currently fence off any CHSC that is not needed for Linux to run, but
there are some that might be useful for the guest (path handling
etc.) Hard to come to a conclusion here without access to the
documentation.
- I don't think we need to care about TSCH (other than keeping the
schib up to date, which we also need to do for STSCH).
- Likewise, TPI should be handled via emulation.

Coming back to the original issue, I think we can easily handle SSCH
(and RSCH), HSCH and CSCH together (with the actual hardware doing the
heavy lifting anyway). For other instructions, we need separate
states/processing.