From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753095AbeEVVla (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 May 2018 17:41:30 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:36942 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752960AbeEVVl2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 May 2018 17:41:28 -0400 Cc: akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Halil Pasic , 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 Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 05/13] s390: vfio-ap: register matrix device with VFIO mdev framework To: Cornelia Huck References: <1525705912-12815-1-git-send-email-akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1525705912-12815-6-git-send-email-akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <5471b194-d7ca-c9c6-132e-fa9539fe44f0@linux.ibm.com> <4688078d-3e13-5201-582f-52576b25defa@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180517094454.6afae7ba.cohuck@redhat.com> <20180522101940.166445f8.cohuck@redhat.com> From: Tony Krowiak Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 17:41:19 -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: <20180522101940.166445f8.cohuck@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 18052221-0024-0000-0000-0000036004F4 X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00009068; HX=3.00000241; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000261; SDB=6.01036186; UDB=6.00530060; IPR=6.00815315; MB=3.00021246; MTD=3.00000008; XFM=3.00000015; UTC=2018-05-22 21:41:25 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 18052221-0025-0000-0000-0000482109A0 Message-Id: <0ccac0ff-82d0-4adc-26a5-c64caf0f7a80@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2018-05-22_06:,, 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 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1709140000 definitions=main-1805220219 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 05/22/2018 04:19 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Mon, 21 May 2018 11:13:58 -0400 > Tony Krowiak wrote: > >> On 05/17/2018 03:44 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote: >>> On Mon, 14 May 2018 15:42:18 -0400 >>> Tony Krowiak wrote: >>> >>>> On 05/11/2018 01:18 PM, Halil Pasic wrote: >>>>> On 05/07/2018 05:11 PM, Tony Krowiak wrote: >>>>>> Registers the matrix device created by the VFIO AP device >>>>>> driver with the VFIO mediated device framework. >>>>>> Registering the matrix device will create the sysfs >>>>>> structures needed to create mediated matrix devices >>>>>> each of which will be used to configure the AP matrix >>>>>> for a guest and connect it to the VFIO AP device driver. >>>>>> +static int vfio_ap_mdev_create(struct kobject *kobj, struct >>>>>> mdev_device *mdev) >>>>>> +{ >>>>>> + struct ap_matrix *ap_matrix = to_ap_matrix(mdev_parent_dev(mdev)); >>>>>> + >>>>>> + ap_matrix->available_instances--; >>>>>> + >>>>>> + return 0; >>>>>> +} >>>>>> + >>>>>> +static int vfio_ap_mdev_remove(struct mdev_device *mdev) >>>>>> +{ >>>>>> + struct ap_matrix *ap_matrix = to_ap_matrix(mdev_parent_dev(mdev)); >>>>>> + >>>>>> + ap_matrix->available_instances++; >>>>>> + >>>>>> + return 0; >>>>>> +} >>>>>> + >>>>> The above functions seem to be called with the lock of this >>>>> auto-generated >>>>> mdev parent device held. That's why we don't have to care about >>>>> synchronization >>>>> ourselves, right? >>>> I would assume as much. The comments for the 'struct mdev_parent_ops' in >>>> include/linux/mdev.h do not mention anything about synchronization, nor >>>> did I >>>> see any locking or synchronization in the vfio_ccw implementation after >>>> which >>>> I modeled my code, so frankly it is something I did not consider. >>>> >>>>> A small comment in the code could be helpful for mdev non-experts. >>>>> Hell, I would >>>>> even consider documenting it for all mdev -- took me some time to >>>>> figure out. >>>> You may want to bring this up with the VFIO mdev maintainers, but I'd be >>>> happy to >>>> include a comment in the functions in question if you think it important. >>> Important note: There's currently a patch on list that removes the mdev >>> parent mutex, and it seems there was never intended to be any >>> serialization in that place by the mdev core. (Look for "vfio/mdev: >>> Check globally for duplicate devices".) >> The patch on the list holds the mdev_list_lock during create and remove >> of an mdev device, so it looks like no synchronization is necessary on the >> part of the vendor code in the create/remove callbacks; does that sound >> about right? > v1/v2 did that; v3/v4 hold the list lock only while the device is added > to the mdev list. v4 also adds a note regarding locking to the > documentation. I'll add some synchronization to the read/update of available instances. >