From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason Wang Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 4/6] vhost_vdpa: implement IRQ offloading in vhost_vdpa Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 13:29:58 +0800 Message-ID: <96df4d83-2297-5f30-b6a3-75a0cdf23a0b@redhat.com> References: <1594898629-18790-1-git-send-email-lingshan.zhu@intel.com> <1594898629-18790-5-git-send-email-lingshan.zhu@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1594898629-18790-5-git-send-email-lingshan.zhu@intel.com> Content-Language: en-US Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Zhu Lingshan , mst@redhat.com, alex.williamson@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, sean.j.christopherson@intel.com, wanpengli@tencent.com Cc: virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org On 2020/7/16 下午7:23, Zhu Lingshan wrote: > This patch introduce a set of functions for setup/unsetup > and update irq offloading respectively by register/unregister > and re-register the irq_bypass_producer. > > Signed-off-by: Zhu Lingshan > Suggested-by: Jason Wang > --- > drivers/vhost/Kconfig | 1 + > drivers/vhost/vdpa.c | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 49 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/vhost/Kconfig b/drivers/vhost/Kconfig > index d3688c6..587fbae 100644 > --- a/drivers/vhost/Kconfig > +++ b/drivers/vhost/Kconfig > @@ -65,6 +65,7 @@ config VHOST_VDPA > tristate "Vhost driver for vDPA-based backend" > depends on EVENTFD > select VHOST > + select IRQ_BYPASS_MANAGER > depends on VDPA > help > This kernel module can be loaded in host kernel to accelerate > diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vdpa.c b/drivers/vhost/vdpa.c > index 2fcc422..b9078d4 100644 > --- a/drivers/vhost/vdpa.c > +++ b/drivers/vhost/vdpa.c > @@ -115,6 +115,43 @@ static irqreturn_t vhost_vdpa_config_cb(void *private) > return IRQ_HANDLED; > } > > +static void vhost_vdpa_setup_vq_irq(struct vdpa_device *dev, int qid, int irq) > +{ > + struct vhost_vdpa *v = vdpa_get_drvdata(dev); > + struct vhost_virtqueue *vq = &v->vqs[qid]; > + int ret; > + > + spin_lock(&vq->call_ctx.ctx_lock); > + if (!vq->call_ctx.ctx) { > + spin_unlock(&vq->call_ctx.ctx_lock); > + return; > + } I think we can simply remove this check as what is done in vhost_vdpq_update_vq_irq(). > + > + vq->call_ctx.producer.token = vq->call_ctx.ctx; > + vq->call_ctx.producer.irq = irq; > + ret = irq_bypass_register_producer(&vq->call_ctx.producer); > + spin_unlock(&vq->call_ctx.ctx_lock); > +} > + > +static void vhost_vdpa_unsetup_vq_irq(struct vdpa_device *dev, int qid) > +{ > + struct vhost_vdpa *v = vdpa_get_drvdata(dev); > + struct vhost_virtqueue *vq = &v->vqs[qid]; > + > + spin_lock(&vq->call_ctx.ctx_lock); > + irq_bypass_unregister_producer(&vq->call_ctx.producer); > + spin_unlock(&vq->call_ctx.ctx_lock); > +} > + > +static void vhost_vdpa_update_vq_irq(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq) > +{ > + spin_lock(&vq->call_ctx.ctx_lock); > + irq_bypass_unregister_producer(&vq->call_ctx.producer); > + vq->call_ctx.producer.token = vq->call_ctx.ctx; > + irq_bypass_register_producer(&vq->call_ctx.producer); > + spin_unlock(&vq->call_ctx.ctx_lock); > +} > + > static void vhost_vdpa_reset(struct vhost_vdpa *v) > { > struct vdpa_device *vdpa = v->vdpa; > @@ -332,6 +369,7 @@ static long vhost_vdpa_set_config_call(struct vhost_vdpa *v, u32 __user *argp) > > return 0; > } > + If you really want to fix coding style issue, it's better to have another patch. > static long vhost_vdpa_vring_ioctl(struct vhost_vdpa *v, unsigned int cmd, > void __user *argp) > { > @@ -390,6 +428,14 @@ static long vhost_vdpa_vring_ioctl(struct vhost_vdpa *v, unsigned int cmd, > cb.private = NULL; > } > ops->set_vq_cb(vdpa, idx, &cb); > + /* > + * if it has a non-zero irq, means there is a > + * previsouly registered irq_bypass_producer, > + * we should update it when ctx (its token) > + * changes. > + */ > + if (vq->call_ctx.producer.irq) > + vhost_vdpa_update_vq_irq(vq); Is this safe to check producer.irq outside spinlock? Thanks > break; > > case VHOST_SET_VRING_NUM: > @@ -951,6 +997,8 @@ static void vhost_vdpa_remove(struct vdpa_device *vdpa) > }, > .probe = vhost_vdpa_probe, > .remove = vhost_vdpa_remove, > + .setup_vq_irq = vhost_vdpa_setup_vq_irq, > + .unsetup_vq_irq = vhost_vdpa_unsetup_vq_irq, > }; > > static int __init vhost_vdpa_init(void)