On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 04:43:51AM -0300, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote: > > > On 05/02/2017 12:40 AM, Bharata B Rao wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 10:55 PM, Daniel Henrique Barboza > > > > > wrote: > > > > Following up the previous detach_cb change, this patch removes the > > detach_cb_opaque entirely from the code. > > > > The reason is that the drc->detach_cb_opaque object can't be > > restored in the post load of the upcoming DRC migration and no detach > > callbacks actually need this opaque. 'spapr_core_release' is > > receiving it as NULL, 'spapr_phb_remove_pci_device_cb' is receiving > > a phb object as opaque but is't using it. These were trivial removal > > cases. > > > > However, the LM removal callback 'spapr_lmb_release' is receiving > > and using the opaque object, a 'sPAPRDIMMState' struct. This struct > > holds the number of LMBs the DIMM object contains and the callback > > was using this counter as a countdown to check if all LMB DRCs were > > release before proceeding to the DIMM unplug. To remove the need of > > this callback we have choices such as: > > > > - migrate the 'sPAPRDIMMState' struct. This would require creating a > > QTAILQ to store all DIMMStates and an additional 'dimm_id' field to > > associate the DIMMState with the DIMM object. We could attach this > > QTAILQ to the 'sPAPRPHBState' and retrieve it later in the callback. > > > > - fetch the state of the LMB DRCs directly by scanning the state of > > them and, if all of them are released, proceed with the DIMM unplug. > > > > The second approach was chosen. The new 'spapr_all_lmbs_drcs_released' > > function scans all LMBs of a given DIMM device to see if their DRC > > state are inactive. If all of them are inactive return 'true', 'false' > > otherwise. This function is being called inside the > > 'spapr_lmb_release' > > callback, replacing the role of the 'sPAPRDIMMState' opaque. The > > 'sPAPRDIMMState' struct was removed from the code given that there are > > no more uses for it. > > > > After all these changes, there are no roles left for the > > 'detach_cb_opaque' > > attribute of the 'sPAPRDRConnector' as well, so we can safely remove > > it from the code too. > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Henrique Barboza > > > > > --- > > hw/ppc/spapr.c | 46 > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------- > > hw/ppc/spapr_drc.c | 16 +++++----------- > > hw/ppc/spapr_pci.c | 4 ++-- > > include/hw/ppc/spapr_drc.h | 6 ++---- > > 4 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr.c b/hw/ppc/spapr.c > > index bc11757..8b9a6cf 100644 > > --- a/hw/ppc/spapr.c > > +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr.c > > @@ -1887,21 +1887,43 @@ static void spapr_drc_reset(void *opaque) > > } > > } > > > > -typedef struct sPAPRDIMMState { > > - uint32_t nr_lmbs; > > -} sPAPRDIMMState; > > +static bool spapr_all_lmbs_drcs_released(PCDIMMDevice *dimm) > > +{ > > + Error *local_err = NULL; > > + PCDIMMDeviceClass *ddc = PC_DIMM_GET_CLASS(dimm); > > + MemoryRegion *mr = ddc->get_memory_region(dimm); > > + uint64_t size = memory_region_size(mr); > > + > > + uint64_t addr; > > + addr = object_property_get_int(OBJECT(dimm), > > PC_DIMM_ADDR_PROP, &local_err); > > + if (local_err) { > > + error_propagate(&error_abort, local_err); > > + return false; > > + } > > + uint32_t nr_lmbs = size / SPAPR_MEMORY_BLOCK_SIZE; > > > > -static void spapr_lmb_release(DeviceState *dev, void *opaque) > > + sPAPRDRConnector *drc; > > + int i = 0; > > + for (i = 0; i < nr_lmbs; i++) { > > + drc = spapr_dr_connector_by_id(SPAPR_DR_CONNECTOR_TYPE_LMB, > > + addr / SPAPR_MEMORY_BLOCK_SIZE); > > + g_assert(drc); > > + if (drc->indicator_state != > > SPAPR_DR_INDICATOR_STATE_INACTIVE) { > > + return false; > > + } > > + addr += SPAPR_MEMORY_BLOCK_SIZE; > > + } > > + return true; > > +} > > + > > +static void spapr_lmb_release(DeviceState *dev) > > { > > - sPAPRDIMMState *ds = (sPAPRDIMMState *)opaque; > > HotplugHandler *hotplug_ctrl; > > > > - if (--ds->nr_lmbs) { > > + if (!spapr_all_lmbs_drcs_released(PC_DIMM(dev))) { > > return; > > } > > > > > > I am concerned about the number of times we walk the DRC list > > corresponding to each DIMM device. When a DIMM device is being removed, > > spapr_lmb_release() will be invoked for each of the LMBs of that DIMM. > > Now in this scheme, we end up walking through all the DRC objects of the > > DIMM from every LMB's release function. > > Hi Bharata, > > > I agree, this is definitely a poorer performance than simply decrementing > ds->nr_lmbs. > The reasons why I went on with it: > > - hot unplug isn't an operation that happens too often, so it's not terrible > to have a delay increase here; So, if it were just a fixed increase in the time, I'd agree. But IIUC from the above, this basically makes the removal O(N^2) in the size of the DIMM, which sounds like it could get bad to me. > - it didn't increased the unplug delay in an human noticeable way, at least > in > my tests; Right, but what size of DIMM did you use? > - apart from migrating the information, there is nothing much we can do in > the > callback side about it. The callback isn't aware of the current state of the > DIMM > removal process, so the scanning is required every time. Well we could potentially use "cached" state here. In the normal way of things we use a value like this, but in the case of migration we re-generate the information with a full scan. > All that said, assuming that the process of DIMM removal will always go > through > 'spapr_del_lmbs', why do we need this callback? Can't we simply do something > like this in spapr_del_lmbs? > > > diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr.c b/hw/ppc/spapr.c > index cd42449..e443fea 100644 > --- a/hw/ppc/spapr.c > +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr.c > @@ -2734,6 +2734,20 @@ static void spapr_del_lmbs(DeviceState *dev, uint64_t > addr_start, uint64_t size, > addr += SPAPR_MEMORY_BLOCK_SIZE; > } > > + if (!spapr_all_lmbs_drcs_released(PC_DIMM(dev))) { > + // something went wrong in the removal of the LMBs. > + // propagate error and return > + throw_error_code; > + return; > + } > + > + /* > + * Now that all the LMBs have been removed by the guest, call the > + * pc-dimm unplug handler to cleanup up the pc-dimm device. > + */ > + hotplug_ctrl = qdev_get_hotplug_handler(dev); > + hotplug_handler_unplug(hotplug_ctrl, dev, &error_abort); > + > drc = spapr_dr_connector_by_id(SPAPR_DR_CONNECTOR_TYPE_LMB, > addr_start / SPAPR_MEMORY_BLOCK_SIZE); > drck = SPAPR_DR_CONNECTOR_GET_CLASS(drc); > > > With this change we run the LMB scanning once at the end of the for > loop inside spapr_del_lmbs to make sure everything went fine (something > that the current code isn't doing, there are operationsvbeing done > afterwards > without checking if the LMB removals actually happened). > > If something went wrong, propagate an error. If not, proceed with the > removal > of the DIMM device and the remaining spapr_del_lmbs code. spapr_lmb_release > can > be safely removed from the code after that. > > > What do you think? That seems like a good idea, independent of anything else. But I may not be remembering how the LMB removal paths all work. Bharata? -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson