From: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> To: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com> Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>, Sebastian Ott <sebott@linux.ibm.com>, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>, Viktor Mihajlovski <mihajlov@linux.ibm.com>, Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>, Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>, Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>, Farhan Ali <alifm@linux.ibm.com>, Eric Farman <farman@linux.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 10/12] virtio/s390: consolidate DMA allocations Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 11:24:46 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20190411112446.013cad09.cohuck@redhat.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20190410194849.511ecc46@oc2783563651> On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 19:48:49 +0200 Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 18:36:43 +0200 > Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 17:12:54 +0200 > > Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 10:46:49 +0200 > > > Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 01:16:20 +0200 > > > > Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c b/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c > > > > > index aa45a6a027ae..7268149f2ee8 100644 > > > > > --- a/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c > > > > > +++ b/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c > > > > > @@ -49,12 +49,12 @@ struct vq_config_block { > > > > > struct vcdev_dma_area { > > > > > unsigned long indicators; > > > > > unsigned long indicators2; > > > > > + struct vq_config_block config_block; > > > > > + __u8 status; /* TODO check __aligned(8); */ > > > > > > > > ...I think that needs attention. > > > > > > Yes I wanted to discuss this with you. I could not find anything > > > in the virtio spec that would put requirements on how this > > > status field needs to be aligned. But I did not look to hard. > > > > > > The ccw.cda can hold an arbitrary data address AFAIR (for indirect, > > > of course we do have alignment requirements). > > > > I think it needs to be doubleword aligned. > > > > I've re-read the part of the PoP that describes the ccw formats. And > it reinforced my position: for IDA and MIDA we need proper alignment, > but if the CCW ain't an indirect one there is no alignment requirement. > > QEMU also does not seem to check either. > > Can you double-check and provide me with a reference that proves me > wrong if I'm wrong. Ah, it was the ccw itself, not the cda. Indeed, there do not seem to be any requirements for direct addressing. > > > > > > > Apparently status used to be a normal field, and became a pointer with > > > 73fa21ea4fc6 "KVM: s390: Dynamic allocation of virtio-ccw I/O > > > data." (Cornelia Huck, 2013-01-07). I could not quite figure out why. > > > > In the beginning, the code used a below-2G-area for all commands. > > Rather than adding locking to avoid races there, that commit switches > > to allocating the needed structures individually. The status field > > needed to be below 2G, so it needed to be allocated separately. > > > > I get it now. The confusing part was that the field 'area' was about > holding the address of the also previously dynamically allocated > below 2G area that was used for talking to the hypervisor via CCW I/O. > > > > > > > So maybe dropping the TODO comment will do just fine. What do you think? > > > > I still think we just need to drop the comment, as we don't have to > align it. Agreed.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> To: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com> Cc: Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Eric Farman <farman@linux.ibm.com>, Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Sebastian Ott <sebott@linux.ibm.com>, Farhan Ali <alifm@linux.ibm.com>, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>, Viktor Mihajlovski <mihajlov@linux.ibm.com>, Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 10/12] virtio/s390: consolidate DMA allocations Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 11:24:46 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20190411112446.013cad09.cohuck@redhat.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20190410194849.511ecc46@oc2783563651> On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 19:48:49 +0200 Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 18:36:43 +0200 > Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 17:12:54 +0200 > > Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 10:46:49 +0200 > > > Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 01:16:20 +0200 > > > > Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c b/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c > > > > > index aa45a6a027ae..7268149f2ee8 100644 > > > > > --- a/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c > > > > > +++ b/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c > > > > > @@ -49,12 +49,12 @@ struct vq_config_block { > > > > > struct vcdev_dma_area { > > > > > unsigned long indicators; > > > > > unsigned long indicators2; > > > > > + struct vq_config_block config_block; > > > > > + __u8 status; /* TODO check __aligned(8); */ > > > > > > > > ...I think that needs attention. > > > > > > Yes I wanted to discuss this with you. I could not find anything > > > in the virtio spec that would put requirements on how this > > > status field needs to be aligned. But I did not look to hard. > > > > > > The ccw.cda can hold an arbitrary data address AFAIR (for indirect, > > > of course we do have alignment requirements). > > > > I think it needs to be doubleword aligned. > > > > I've re-read the part of the PoP that describes the ccw formats. And > it reinforced my position: for IDA and MIDA we need proper alignment, > but if the CCW ain't an indirect one there is no alignment requirement. > > QEMU also does not seem to check either. > > Can you double-check and provide me with a reference that proves me > wrong if I'm wrong. Ah, it was the ccw itself, not the cda. Indeed, there do not seem to be any requirements for direct addressing. > > > > > > > Apparently status used to be a normal field, and became a pointer with > > > 73fa21ea4fc6 "KVM: s390: Dynamic allocation of virtio-ccw I/O > > > data." (Cornelia Huck, 2013-01-07). I could not quite figure out why. > > > > In the beginning, the code used a below-2G-area for all commands. > > Rather than adding locking to avoid races there, that commit switches > > to allocating the needed structures individually. The status field > > needed to be below 2G, so it needed to be allocated separately. > > > > I get it now. The confusing part was that the field 'area' was about > holding the address of the also previously dynamically allocated > below 2G area that was used for talking to the hypervisor via CCW I/O. > > > > > > > So maybe dropping the TODO comment will do just fine. What do you think? > > > > I still think we just need to drop the comment, as we don't have to > align it. Agreed.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-11 9:24 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 87+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2019-04-04 23:16 [RFC PATCH 00/12] s390: virtio: support protected virtualization Halil Pasic 2019-04-04 23:16 ` [RFC PATCH 01/12] virtio/s390: use vring_create_virtqueue Halil Pasic 2019-04-08 11:01 ` Cornelia Huck 2019-04-08 11:01 ` Cornelia Huck 2019-04-08 12:37 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 2019-04-08 12:37 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 2019-04-08 13:20 ` Halil Pasic 2019-04-04 23:16 ` [RFC PATCH 02/12] virtio/s390: DMA support for virtio-ccw Halil Pasic 2019-04-09 9:57 ` Cornelia Huck 2019-04-09 9:57 ` Cornelia Huck 2019-04-09 11:29 ` Halil Pasic 2019-04-09 13:01 ` Cornelia Huck 2019-04-09 13:01 ` Cornelia Huck 2019-04-09 13:23 ` Halil Pasic 2019-04-09 15:47 ` Cornelia Huck 2019-04-09 15:47 ` Cornelia Huck 2019-04-04 23:16 ` [RFC PATCH 03/12] s390/mm: force swiotlb for protected virtualization Halil Pasic 2019-04-09 10:16 ` Cornelia Huck 2019-04-09 10:16 ` Cornelia Huck 2019-04-09 10:54 ` Halil Pasic 2019-04-09 17:18 ` Cornelia Huck 2019-04-09 17:18 ` Cornelia Huck 2019-04-09 12:22 ` Christoph Hellwig 2019-04-09 12:22 ` Christoph Hellwig 2019-04-09 12:39 ` Halil Pasic 2019-04-04 23:16 ` [RFC PATCH 04/12] s390/cio: introduce cio DMA pool Halil Pasic 2019-04-09 10:44 ` Cornelia Huck 2019-04-09 10:44 ` Cornelia Huck 2019-04-09 12:11 ` Halil Pasic 2019-04-09 17:14 ` Cornelia Huck 2019-04-09 17:14 ` Cornelia Huck 2019-04-10 15:31 ` Halil Pasic 2019-04-10 16:07 ` Cornelia Huck 2019-04-10 16:07 ` Cornelia Huck 2019-04-10 16:52 ` Halil Pasic 2019-04-11 18:25 ` Sebastian Ott 2019-04-11 18:25 ` Sebastian Ott 2019-04-12 11:20 ` Halil Pasic 2019-04-12 12:12 ` Sebastian Ott 2019-04-12 12:12 ` Sebastian Ott 2019-04-12 15:30 ` Halil Pasic 2019-04-16 12:50 ` Sebastian Ott 2019-04-16 12:50 ` Sebastian Ott 2019-04-16 13:31 ` Halil Pasic 2019-04-04 23:16 ` [RFC PATCH 05/12] s390/cio: add protected virtualization support to cio Halil Pasic 2019-04-09 17:55 ` Cornelia Huck 2019-04-09 17:55 ` Cornelia Huck 2019-04-10 0:10 ` Halil Pasic 2019-04-10 8:25 ` Cornelia Huck 2019-04-10 8:25 ` Cornelia Huck 2019-04-10 13:02 ` Halil Pasic 2019-04-10 16:16 ` Cornelia Huck 2019-04-10 16:16 ` Cornelia Huck 2019-04-11 14:15 ` Sebastian Ott 2019-04-11 14:15 ` Sebastian Ott 2019-04-12 11:29 ` Halil Pasic 2019-04-04 23:16 ` [RFC PATCH 06/12] s390/airq: use DMA memory for adapter interrupts Halil Pasic 2019-04-04 23:16 ` [RFC PATCH 07/12] virtio/s390: use DMA memory for ccw I/O Halil Pasic 2019-04-10 8:42 ` Cornelia Huck 2019-04-10 8:42 ` Cornelia Huck 2019-04-10 14:42 ` Halil Pasic 2019-04-10 16:21 ` Cornelia Huck 2019-04-10 16:21 ` Cornelia Huck 2019-04-04 23:16 ` [RFC PATCH 08/12] virtio/s390: add indirection to indicators access Halil Pasic 2019-04-04 23:16 ` [RFC PATCH 09/12] virtio/s390: use DMA memory for notifiers Halil Pasic 2019-04-04 23:16 ` [RFC PATCH 10/12] virtio/s390: consolidate DMA allocations Halil Pasic 2019-04-10 8:46 ` Cornelia Huck 2019-04-10 8:46 ` Cornelia Huck 2019-04-10 15:12 ` Halil Pasic 2019-04-10 16:36 ` Cornelia Huck 2019-04-10 16:36 ` Cornelia Huck 2019-04-10 17:48 ` Halil Pasic 2019-04-11 9:24 ` Cornelia Huck [this message] 2019-04-11 9:24 ` Cornelia Huck 2019-04-11 10:10 ` Halil Pasic 2019-04-04 23:16 ` [RFC PATCH 11/12] virtio/s390: use the cio DMA pool Halil Pasic 2019-04-04 23:16 ` [RFC PATCH 12/12] virtio/s390: make airq summary indicators DMA Halil Pasic 2019-04-10 9:20 ` [RFC PATCH 00/12] s390: virtio: support protected virtualization Cornelia Huck 2019-04-10 9:20 ` Cornelia Huck 2019-04-10 15:57 ` Halil Pasic 2019-04-10 16:24 ` Cornelia Huck 2019-04-10 16:24 ` Cornelia Huck 2019-04-12 13:47 ` David Hildenbrand 2019-04-12 13:47 ` David Hildenbrand 2019-04-16 11:10 ` Halil Pasic 2019-04-16 11:50 ` David Hildenbrand 2019-04-16 11:50 ` David Hildenbrand
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20190411112446.013cad09.cohuck@redhat.com \ --to=cohuck@redhat.com \ --cc=alifm@linux.ibm.com \ --cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \ --cc=farman@linux.ibm.com \ --cc=frankja@linux.ibm.com \ --cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \ --cc=imbrenda@linux.ibm.com \ --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=mihajlov@linux.ibm.com \ --cc=pasic@linux.ibm.com \ --cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \ --cc=sebott@linux.ibm.com \ --cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.