From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 15:54:19 +0200 From: Cornelia Huck Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/10] virtio/s390: use DMA memory for ccw I/O and classic notifiers Message-ID: <20190513155419.5b9d9ba4.cohuck@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20190426183245.37939-10-pasic@linux.ibm.com> References: <20190426183245.37939-1-pasic@linux.ibm.com> <20190426183245.37939-10-pasic@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Archive: List-Post: To: Halil Pasic Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Martin Schwidefsky , Sebastian Ott , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Christoph Hellwig , Thomas Huth , Christian Borntraeger , Viktor Mihajlovski , Vasily Gorbik , Janosch Frank , Claudio Imbrenda , Farhan Ali , Eric Farman List-ID: On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 20:32:44 +0200 Halil Pasic wrote: > Before virtio-ccw could get away with not using DMA API for the pieces of > memory it does ccw I/O with. With protected virtualization this has to > change, since the hypervisor needs to read and sometimes also write these > pieces of memory. > > The hypervisor is supposed to poke the classic notifiers, if these are > used, out of band with regards to ccw I/O. So these need to be allocated > as DMA memory (which is shared memory for protected virtualization > guests). > > Let us factor out everything from struct virtio_ccw_device that needs to > be DMA memory in a satellite that is allocated as such. > > Note: The control blocks of I/O instructions do not need to be shared. > These are marshalled by the ultravisor. > > Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic > --- > drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c | 177 +++++++++++++++++++++------------------ > 1 file changed, 96 insertions(+), 81 deletions(-) > > @@ -176,6 +180,22 @@ static struct virtio_ccw_device *to_vc_device(struct virtio_device *vdev) > return container_of(vdev, struct virtio_ccw_device, vdev); > } > > +static inline void *__vc_dma_alloc(struct virtio_device *vdev, size_t size) > +{ > + return ccw_device_dma_zalloc(to_vc_device(vdev)->cdev, size); > +} > + > +static inline void __vc_dma_free(struct virtio_device *vdev, size_t size, > + void *cpu_addr) > +{ > + return ccw_device_dma_free(to_vc_device(vdev)->cdev, cpu_addr, size); > +} Hm, why do these use leading underscores? Also, maybe make the _free function safe for NULL to simplify the cleanup paths? > + > +#define vc_dma_alloc_struct(vdev, ptr) \ > + ({ptr = __vc_dma_alloc(vdev, sizeof(*(ptr))); }) > +#define vc_dma_free_struct(vdev, ptr) \ > + __vc_dma_free(vdev, sizeof(*(ptr)), (ptr)) I find these a bit ugly... does adding a wrapper help that much? > + > static void drop_airq_indicator(struct virtqueue *vq, struct airq_info *info) > { > unsigned long i, flags;