Re: [PATCH v1] s390/virtio_ccw: don't allocate/assign airqs for non-existing queues

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

On 09.04.25 12:56, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 09, 2025 at 12:46:41PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 07.04.25 23:20, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 08:47:05PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>> In my opinion, it makes the most sense to keep the spec as it is and
>>>>> change QEMU and the kernel to match, but obviously that's not trivial
>>>>> to do in a way that doesn't break existing devices and drivers.
>>>>
>>>> If only it would be limited to QEMU and Linux ... :)
>>>>
>>>> Out of curiosity, assuming we'd make the spec match the current QEMU/Linux
>>>> implementation at least for the 3 involved features only, would there be a
>>>> way to adjust crossvm without any disruption?
>>>>
>>>> I still have the feeling that it will be rather hard to get that all
>>>> implementations match the spec ... For new features+queues it will be easy
>>>> to force the usage of fixed virtqueue numbers, but for free-page-hinting and
>>>> reporting, it's a mess :(
>>>
>>>
>>> Still thinking about a way to fix drivers... We can discuss this
>>> theoretically, maybe?
>>
>> Yes, absolutely. I took the time to do some more digging; regarding drivers
>> only Linux seems to be problematic.
>>
>> virtio-win, FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD and don't seem to support
>> problematic features (free page hinting, free page reporting) in their
>> virtio-balloon implementations.
>>
>> So from the known drivers, only Linux is applicable.
>>
>> reporting_vq is either at idx 4/3/2
>> free_page_vq is either at idx 3/2
>> statsq is at idx2 (only relevant if the feature is offered)
>>
>> So if we could test for the existence of a virtqueue at an idx easily, we
>> could test from highest-to-smallest idx.
>>
>> But I recall that testing for the existance of a virtqueue on s390x resulted
>> in the problem/deadlock in the first place ...
>>
>> -- 
>> Cheers,
>>
>> David / dhildenb
> 
> So let's talk about a new feature bit?

Are you thinking about a new feature that switches between "fixed queue 
indices" and "compressed queue indices", whereby the latter would be the 
legacy default and we would expect all devices to switch to the new 
fixed-queue-indices layout?

We could make all new features require "fixed-queue-indices".

> 
> Since vqs are probed after feature negotiation, it looks like
> we could have a feature bit trigger sane behaviour, right?

In the Linux driver, yes. In QEMU (devices), we add the queues when 
realizing, so we'd need some mechanism to adjust the queue indices based 
on feature negotiation I guess?

For virtio-balloon it might be doable to simply always create+indicate 
free-page hinting to resolve the issue easily.

For virtio-fs it might not be that easy.

> 
> I kind of dislike it that we have a feature bit for bugs though.
> What would be a minimal new feature to add so it does not
> feel wrong?

Probably as above: fixed vs. compressed virtqueue indices?

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb