Re: [PATCH 3/3] vfio-ccw: add handling for asnyc channel instructions

Farhan Ali
2018-11-28T14:31:51Z

On 11/28/2018 04:02 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 14:09:49 -0500
> Farhan Ali <alifm@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/22/2018 11:54 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>> Add a region to the vfio-ccw device that can be used to submit
>>> asynchronous I/O instructions. ssch continues to be handled by the
>>> existing I/O region; the new region handles hsch and csch.
>>>
>>> Interrupt status continues to be reported through the same channels
>>> as for ssch.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/s390/cio/Makefile | 3 +-
>>> drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_async.c | 88 ++++++++++++++++
>>> drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_drv.c | 48 ++++++---
>>> drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_fsm.c | 158 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>> drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_ops.c | 13 ++-
>>> drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_private.h | 6 ++
>>> include/uapi/linux/vfio.h | 4 +
>>> include/uapi/linux/vfio_ccw.h | 12 +++
>>> 8 files changed, 313 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>>> create mode 100644 drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_async.c
>>>
>
>>> @@ -76,7 +79,8 @@ static void vfio_ccw_sch_io_todo(struct work_struct *work)
>>> private = container_of(work, struct vfio_ccw_private, io_work);
>>> irb = &private->irb;
>>>
>>> - if (scsw_is_solicited(&irb->scsw)) {
>>> + if (scsw_is_solicited(&irb->scsw) &&
>>> + (scsw_fctl(&irb->scsw) & SCSW_FCTL_START_FUNC)) {
>>> cp_update_scsw(&private->cp, &irb->scsw);
>>> cp_free(&private->cp);
>>> }
>>
>> I am a little confused about this. Why do we need to update the scsw.cpa
>> if we have the start function function control bit set? Is it an
>> optimization?
>
> No, it's not an optimization. This is the work function that is
> scheduled if we get an interrupt for the device. Previously, we only
> got an interrupt if either the device presented us an unsolicited
> status or if we got an interrupt as a response to the channel program
> we submitted. Now, we can get an interrupt for halt/clear subchannel as
> well, and in that case, we don't necessarily have a cp.
>
> [Thinking some more about it, we need to verify if the start function
> actually remains set if we try to terminate a running channel program
> with halt/clear. A clear might scrub too much. If that's the case, we
> also need to free the cp if the start function is not set.]
>
>

According to PoPs (Chapter 16: I/O interruptions, under function control):

The start-function indication is also cleared at
the subchannel during the execution of CLEAR SUB-
CHANNEL.

So maybe we do need to free the cp.