From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63C02C433F4 for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 16:42:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DAEF21480 for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 16:42:54 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 1DAEF21480 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1732195AbeIXWpx (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Sep 2018 18:45:53 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:37760 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1731922AbeIXWpv (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Sep 2018 18:45:51 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098410.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w8OGd0ae096002 for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 12:42:50 -0400 Received: from e34.co.us.ibm.com (e34.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.152]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2mq20j51gc-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 12:42:49 -0400 Received: from localhost by e34.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 10:42:49 -0600 Received: from b03cxnp08027.gho.boulder.ibm.com (9.17.130.19) by e34.co.us.ibm.com (192.168.1.134) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Mon, 24 Sep 2018 10:42:45 -0600 Received: from b03ledav005.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03ledav005.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.236]) by b03cxnp08027.gho.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id w8OGggYm50790504 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 24 Sep 2018 09:42:42 -0700 Received: from b03ledav005.gho.boulder.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71CAABE04F; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 10:42:42 -0600 (MDT) Received: from b03ledav005.gho.boulder.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6249FBE051; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 10:42:39 -0600 (MDT) Received: from oc8043147753.ibm.com (unknown [9.85.130.123]) by b03ledav005.gho.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 10:42:39 -0600 (MDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 13/26] s390: vfio-ap: zeroize the AP queues To: Harald Freudenberger , Halil Pasic , Cornelia Huck , Tony Krowiak Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, freude@de.ibm.com, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, kwankhede@nvidia.com, bjsdjshi@linux.vnet.ibm.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, alex.williamson@redhat.com, pmorel@linux.vnet.ibm.com, alifm@linux.vnet.ibm.com, mjrosato@linux.vnet.ibm.com, jjherne@linux.vnet.ibm.com, thuth@redhat.com, pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com, berrange@redhat.com, fiuczy@linux.vnet.ibm.com, buendgen@de.ibm.com, frankja@linux.ibm.com References: <1536781396-13601-1-git-send-email-akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1536781396-13601-14-git-send-email-akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180924133611.01fef50e.cohuck@redhat.com> <113e07ba-370e-bdcf-4e85-412834947552@linux.ibm.com> From: Tony Krowiak Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 12:42:38 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <113e07ba-370e-bdcf-4e85-412834947552@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 18092416-0016-0000-0000-00000933DEEF X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00009763; HX=3.00000242; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000267; SDB=6.01093030; UDB=6.00564899; IPR=6.00873068; MB=3.00023484; MTD=3.00000008; XFM=3.00000015; UTC=2018-09-24 16:42:47 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 18092416-0017-0000-0000-00004077A8AC Message-Id: <6f04d759-7bc8-cf96-30ba-81621572e7d3@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2018-09-24_10:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1807170000 definitions=main-1809240163 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 09/24/2018 09:22 AM, Harald Freudenberger wrote: > On 24.09.2018 14:16, Halil Pasic wrote: >> >> On 09/24/2018 01:36 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: (...) >>> ...and here, we return the last error of any of the resets. Two >>> questions: >>> >>> - Does it make sense to continue if we get -EIO? IOW, does "really >>> broken" only refer to a certain tuple and other tuples still can/need >>> to be reset? >> I think it does make sense to continue, because IMHO "things are really >> broken" is an overstatement (I mean the APQN invalid case). One could >> argue would skipping the current card (adapter) be justified or not. >> >> IMHO the current code is good enough for the first shot, and we can think >> about fine-tuning it later. > Absolutely. The -EIO case is reached for example when the APQN > is 'deconfigured' which means the crypto adapter is logically unplugged. > So the -EIO case should NOT lead to some fatal actions like panic() > or cause a KVM guest to shut down or so. >>> - Is the return code useful in any way, as we don't know which tuple it >>> refers to? >>> >> Well, good question. It conveys that the operation can 'fail'. AFAIR -EBUSY >> is mostly fine given what the architecture say if we are satisfied with just >> reset. And the cases behind -EIO might actually be OK too in the same sense. >> My guess is, that based on the return value client code can tell if we have >> zeroize for all queues or basically just reset (like rapq). We could log that >> to some debug facility or whatever -- I guess, but at the moment we don't care. >> >> In the end I think the code is good enough as is, and if we want we can >> improve on it later. >> >> Regards, >> Halil >> I'll note that in v7 a message was logged to indicate for which APQN the error occurred, but I was asked to remove the printk log messsages. I agree with Halil and Harald confirmed that the code is probably okay as it stands. I can definitely see enhancing all of AP virtualization down the road with some type of debug logging. >