Re: [PATCH v2 07/13] vfio/ccw: Convert to use vfio_register_group_dev()

Cornelia Huck
2021-04-29T11:59:10Z

On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 14:20:08 -0300
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 07:09:49PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 17:00:09 -0300
> > Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote:
> >
> > > This is more complicated because vfio_ccw is sharing the vfio_device
> > > between both the mdev_device and its vfio_device and the css_driver.
> > >
> > > The mdev is a singleton, and the reason for this sharing appears to be to
> > > allow the extra css_driver function callbacks to be delivered to the
> > > vfio_device.
> > >
> > > This keeps things as they were, with the css_driver allocating the
> > > singleton, not the mdev_driver, this is pretty confusing. I'm also
> > > uncertain how the lifetime model for the mdev works in the css_driver
> > > callbacks.
> > >
> > > At this point embed the vfio_device in the vfio_ccw_private and
> > > instantiate it as a vfio_device when the mdev probes. The drvdata of both
> > > the css_device and the mdev_device point at the private, and container_of
> > > is used to get it back from the vfio_device.
> >
> > I've been staring at this for some time, and I'm not sure whether this
> > is a good approach.
> >
> > We allow at most one mdev per subchannel (slicing it up does not make
> > sense), so we can be sure that there's a 1:1 relationship between mdev
> > and parent device, and we can track it via a single pointer.
>
> This seems like one of these cases where using the mdev GUID API was not a
> great fit. The ccs_driver should have just directly created a
> vfio_device and not gone into the mdev guid lifecycle world.

I don't remember much of the discussion back then, but I don't think
the explicit generation of devices was the part we needed, but rather
some other kind of mediation -- probably iommu related, as subchannels
don't have that concept on their own. Anyway, too late to change now.

>
> > The vfio_ccw_private driver data is allocated during probe (same as for
> > other css_drivers.) Embedding a vfio_device here means that we have a
> > structure tied into it that is operating with different lifetime rules.
> >
> > What about creating a second structure instead that can embed the
> > vfio_device, is allocated during mdev probing, and is linked up with
> > the vfio_ccw_private structure? That would follow the pattern of other
> > drivers more closely.
>
> IIRC we still end up with pointers crossing between the two
> structs. If you can't convince yourself that is correct (and I could
> not) then it is already buggy today.
>
> It is as I said to Eric, either there is no concurrency when there is
> no mdev and everything is correct today, or there is concurrency and
> it seems buggy today too.
>
> The right answer it to move the allocations out of the css_driver
> probe and put them only in the mdev driver probe because they can only
> make sense when the mdev driver is instantiated. Then everything is
> clear and very understandable how it should work.
>
> I almost did this, but couldn't figure out how the lifetime of the
> ccs_driver callbacks are working relative to the lifetime of the mdev
> device since they also reach into these structs. Maybe they can't be
> called for some css related reason?

Moving allocations to the mdev driver probe makes sense, I guess. We
should also move enabling the subchannel to that point in time (I don't
remember why we enable it in the css probe function, and can't think of
a good reason for that; obviously needs to be paired with quiescing and
disabling the subchannel in the mdev driver remove function); that
leaves the uevent dance (which can hopefully also be removed, if some
discussed changes are implemented in the common I/O layer) and fencing
QDIO.

Regarding the other callbacks,
- vfio_ccw_sch_irq should not be invoked if the subchannel is not
enabled; maybe log a message before returning for !private.
- vfio_ccw_sch_remove should be able to return 0 for !private (nothing
to quiesce, if the subchannel is not enabled).
- vfio_ccw_sch_shutdown has nothing to do for !private (same reason.)
- In vfio_ccw_sch_event, we should either skip the fsm_event and the
state change for !private, or return 0 in that case.
- vfio_ccw_chp_event already checks for !private. Not sure whether we
should try to update some control blocks and return -ENODEV if the
subchannel is not operational, but it's probably not needed.

Eric, what do you think?