| Message ID | 20130226111812.GA11111@redhat.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On 26/02/13 12:18, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 01:04:21PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 04:27:45PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: >>> Here's the latest version of my patch series enabling ioeventfds >>> on s390, again against kvm-next. >>> >>> Patches 1 and 2 (cleaning up initialization and exporting the virtio-ccw >>> api) would make sense even independent of the ioeventfd enhancements. >>> >>> Patches 3-5 are concerned with adding a new type of ioeventfds for >>> virtio-ccw notifications on s390. The naming is now hopefully clearer. >>> We won't add ioeventfd support for the legacy s390-virtio transport. >>> >>> Please consider applying. >> >> I just had a thought: this makes us lookup the device on the bus >> for each notification. It would be better to simply get the >> device index from guest instead. >> >> We could validate that it matches the correct device, >> if not - fallback to the current linear scan. >> >> We could return the index to guest for the next call. >> >> I know this needs guest changes but it's still not too late to >> fix this for 3.9 guests so that we won't need to worry >> about compatibility going forward. >> >> Hmm? > > And just to clarify, here's what I mean (BTW, why doesn't > this code use the interfaces from kvm_para.h?) > I think it's a good idea to merge this before 3.9 so we don't > need to worry about legacy going forward. > > Completely untested, just to give you the idea. Thinking more about it: Isnt the index on the kvm bus just an implementation detail? In other words, what happens if we want to re-arrange the kvm io bus to a tree like structure. Then the index becomes pretty much useless. Do we really want to put such an internal thing into an interface? CHristian
On 26/02/13 12:18, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > virtio_ccw: pass a cookie value to kvm hypercall > > Lookups by channel/vq pair on host during virtio notifications might be > expensive. Interpret hypercall return value as a cookie which host can > use to do device lookups for the next notification more efficiently. > > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> > > --- > > diff --git a/drivers/s390/kvm/virtio_ccw.c b/drivers/s390/kvm/virtio_ccw.c > index 2029b6c..1054f3a 100644 > --- a/drivers/s390/kvm/virtio_ccw.c > +++ b/drivers/s390/kvm/virtio_ccw.c > @@ -77,6 +77,7 @@ struct virtio_ccw_vq_info { > void *queue; > struct vq_info_block *info_block; > struct list_head node; > + long cookie; > }; > > #define KVM_VIRTIO_CCW_RING_ALIGN 4096 > @@ -145,15 +146,18 @@ static int ccw_io_helper(struct virtio_ccw_device *vcdev, > } > > static inline long do_kvm_notify(struct subchannel_id schid, > - unsigned long queue_index) > + unsigned long queue_index, > + long cookie) > { > register unsigned long __nr asm("1") = KVM_S390_VIRTIO_CCW_NOTIFY; > register struct subchannel_id __schid asm("2") = schid; > register unsigned long __index asm("3") = queue_index; > register long __rc asm("2"); > + register long __cookie asm("4") = cookie; > > asm volatile ("diag 2,4,0x500\n" > - : "=d" (__rc) : "d" (__nr), "d" (__schid), "d" (__index) > + : "=d" (__rc) : "d" (__nr), "d" (__schid), "d" (__index), > + "d"(__cookie) > : "memory", "cc"); > return __rc; > } > @@ -166,7 +170,7 @@ static void virtio_ccw_kvm_notify(struct virtqueue *vq) > > vcdev = to_vc_device(info->vq->vdev); > ccw_device_get_schid(vcdev->cdev, &schid); > - do_kvm_notify(schid, virtqueue_get_queue_index(vq)); > + info->cookie = do_kvm_notify(schid, virtqueue_get_queue_index(vq), info->cookie); > } > > static int virtio_ccw_read_vq_conf(struct virtio_ccw_device *vcdev, Hmmm, forget my last mail. This actually could be even forward and backward compatible. In the virtio spec we will not define the cookie format (just 64bit int). That will allow qemu or future kernels to use that for other things (as long as a validity check is possible) if we dont have a kvm bus. Now: old guest, old host: works. old guest, new host: the cookie from the guest contains junk, the host needs to detect that the cookie is junk and ignores it. It will return the new cookie anyway. new guest, old host: The guest will get a junk cookie and pass it back to the host. But the host will ignore it anyway. new guest, new host: works. So... Acked-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 13:13:39 +0100 Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> wrote: > On 26/02/13 12:18, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > virtio_ccw: pass a cookie value to kvm hypercall > > > > Lookups by channel/vq pair on host during virtio notifications might be > > expensive. Interpret hypercall return value as a cookie which host can > > use to do device lookups for the next notification more efficiently. > > > > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> > > > > --- > > > > diff --git a/drivers/s390/kvm/virtio_ccw.c b/drivers/s390/kvm/virtio_ccw.c > > index 2029b6c..1054f3a 100644 > > --- a/drivers/s390/kvm/virtio_ccw.c > > +++ b/drivers/s390/kvm/virtio_ccw.c > > @@ -77,6 +77,7 @@ struct virtio_ccw_vq_info { > > void *queue; > > struct vq_info_block *info_block; > > struct list_head node; > > + long cookie; > > }; > > > > #define KVM_VIRTIO_CCW_RING_ALIGN 4096 > > @@ -145,15 +146,18 @@ static int ccw_io_helper(struct virtio_ccw_device *vcdev, > > } > > > > static inline long do_kvm_notify(struct subchannel_id schid, > > - unsigned long queue_index) > > + unsigned long queue_index, > > + long cookie) > > { > > register unsigned long __nr asm("1") = KVM_S390_VIRTIO_CCW_NOTIFY; > > register struct subchannel_id __schid asm("2") = schid; > > register unsigned long __index asm("3") = queue_index; > > register long __rc asm("2"); > > + register long __cookie asm("4") = cookie; > > > > asm volatile ("diag 2,4,0x500\n" > > - : "=d" (__rc) : "d" (__nr), "d" (__schid), "d" (__index) > > + : "=d" (__rc) : "d" (__nr), "d" (__schid), "d" (__index), > > + "d"(__cookie) > > : "memory", "cc"); > > return __rc; > > } > > @@ -166,7 +170,7 @@ static void virtio_ccw_kvm_notify(struct virtqueue *vq) > > > > vcdev = to_vc_device(info->vq->vdev); > > ccw_device_get_schid(vcdev->cdev, &schid); > > - do_kvm_notify(schid, virtqueue_get_queue_index(vq)); > > + info->cookie = do_kvm_notify(schid, virtqueue_get_queue_index(vq), info->cookie); > > } > > > > static int virtio_ccw_read_vq_conf(struct virtio_ccw_device *vcdev, > > > Hmmm, forget my last mail. This actually could be even forward and backward compatible. > In the virtio spec we will not define the cookie format (just 64bit int). That will allow > qemu or future kernels to use that for other things (as long as a validity check is > possible) if we dont have a kvm bus. > > Now: > > old guest, old host: > works. > > old guest, new host: > the cookie from the guest contains junk, the host needs to detect that the cookie is > junk and ignores it. It will return the new cookie anyway. > > new guest, old host: > The guest will get a junk cookie and pass it back to the host. But the host will ignore > it anyway. > > new guest, new host: > works. > > So... > Acked-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> Yes, that sounds sane; I'll give it a try later. However, I'd rather not want to rush this; I'd prefer to get the initial version in first. I'll do a v4 later.
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 01:13:39PM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > On 26/02/13 12:18, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > virtio_ccw: pass a cookie value to kvm hypercall > > > > Lookups by channel/vq pair on host during virtio notifications might be > > expensive. Interpret hypercall return value as a cookie which host can > > use to do device lookups for the next notification more efficiently. > > > > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> > > > > --- > > > > diff --git a/drivers/s390/kvm/virtio_ccw.c b/drivers/s390/kvm/virtio_ccw.c > > index 2029b6c..1054f3a 100644 > > --- a/drivers/s390/kvm/virtio_ccw.c > > +++ b/drivers/s390/kvm/virtio_ccw.c > > @@ -77,6 +77,7 @@ struct virtio_ccw_vq_info { > > void *queue; > > struct vq_info_block *info_block; > > struct list_head node; > > + long cookie; > > }; > > > > #define KVM_VIRTIO_CCW_RING_ALIGN 4096 > > @@ -145,15 +146,18 @@ static int ccw_io_helper(struct virtio_ccw_device *vcdev, > > } > > > > static inline long do_kvm_notify(struct subchannel_id schid, > > - unsigned long queue_index) > > + unsigned long queue_index, > > + long cookie) > > { > > register unsigned long __nr asm("1") = KVM_S390_VIRTIO_CCW_NOTIFY; > > register struct subchannel_id __schid asm("2") = schid; > > register unsigned long __index asm("3") = queue_index; > > register long __rc asm("2"); > > + register long __cookie asm("4") = cookie; > > > > asm volatile ("diag 2,4,0x500\n" > > - : "=d" (__rc) : "d" (__nr), "d" (__schid), "d" (__index) > > + : "=d" (__rc) : "d" (__nr), "d" (__schid), "d" (__index), > > + "d"(__cookie) > > : "memory", "cc"); > > return __rc; > > } > > @@ -166,7 +170,7 @@ static void virtio_ccw_kvm_notify(struct virtqueue *vq) > > > > vcdev = to_vc_device(info->vq->vdev); > > ccw_device_get_schid(vcdev->cdev, &schid); > > - do_kvm_notify(schid, virtqueue_get_queue_index(vq)); > > + info->cookie = do_kvm_notify(schid, virtqueue_get_queue_index(vq), info->cookie); > > } > > > > static int virtio_ccw_read_vq_conf(struct virtio_ccw_device *vcdev, > > > Hmmm, forget my last mail. This actually could be even forward and backward compatible. > In the virtio spec we will not define the cookie format (just 64bit int). That will allow > qemu or future kernels to use that for other things (as long as a validity check is > possible) if we dont have a kvm bus. > > Now: > > old guest, old host: > works. > > old guest, new host: > the cookie from the guest contains junk, the host needs to detect that the cookie is > junk and ignores it. It will return the new cookie anyway. > > new guest, old host: > The guest will get a junk cookie and pass it back to the host. But the host will ignore > it anyway. > > new guest, new host: > works. > > So... > Acked-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> So let's apply the patch for 3.9 and avoid caring about "old guests" much?
On 26/02/13 14:41, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> So... >> Acked-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> > > So let's apply the patch for 3.9 and Give us 1 or 2 days testing for regression and then this can go for 3.9. The host changes can then be deferred to a later point in time. > avoid caring about "old guests" much? Well caring about old guests is related to caring about malicious guests. Maybe we should make it explicit in the spec that the token can be wrong or omitted. Just to avoid that anybody starts to optimize things too aggressive. Ok? Christian
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 02:29:07PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 13:13:39 +0100 > Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> wrote: > > > On 26/02/13 12:18, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > virtio_ccw: pass a cookie value to kvm hypercall > > > > > > Lookups by channel/vq pair on host during virtio notifications might be > > > expensive. Interpret hypercall return value as a cookie which host can > > > use to do device lookups for the next notification more efficiently. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> > > > > > > --- > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/s390/kvm/virtio_ccw.c b/drivers/s390/kvm/virtio_ccw.c > > > index 2029b6c..1054f3a 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/s390/kvm/virtio_ccw.c > > > +++ b/drivers/s390/kvm/virtio_ccw.c > > > @@ -77,6 +77,7 @@ struct virtio_ccw_vq_info { > > > void *queue; > > > struct vq_info_block *info_block; > > > struct list_head node; > > > + long cookie; > > > }; > > > > > > #define KVM_VIRTIO_CCW_RING_ALIGN 4096 > > > @@ -145,15 +146,18 @@ static int ccw_io_helper(struct virtio_ccw_device *vcdev, > > > } > > > > > > static inline long do_kvm_notify(struct subchannel_id schid, > > > - unsigned long queue_index) > > > + unsigned long queue_index, > > > + long cookie) > > > { > > > register unsigned long __nr asm("1") = KVM_S390_VIRTIO_CCW_NOTIFY; > > > register struct subchannel_id __schid asm("2") = schid; > > > register unsigned long __index asm("3") = queue_index; > > > register long __rc asm("2"); > > > + register long __cookie asm("4") = cookie; > > > > > > asm volatile ("diag 2,4,0x500\n" > > > - : "=d" (__rc) : "d" (__nr), "d" (__schid), "d" (__index) > > > + : "=d" (__rc) : "d" (__nr), "d" (__schid), "d" (__index), > > > + "d"(__cookie) > > > : "memory", "cc"); > > > return __rc; > > > } > > > @@ -166,7 +170,7 @@ static void virtio_ccw_kvm_notify(struct virtqueue *vq) > > > > > > vcdev = to_vc_device(info->vq->vdev); > > > ccw_device_get_schid(vcdev->cdev, &schid); > > > - do_kvm_notify(schid, virtqueue_get_queue_index(vq)); > > > + info->cookie = do_kvm_notify(schid, virtqueue_get_queue_index(vq), info->cookie); > > > } > > > > > > static int virtio_ccw_read_vq_conf(struct virtio_ccw_device *vcdev, > > > > > > Hmmm, forget my last mail. This actually could be even forward and backward compatible. > > In the virtio spec we will not define the cookie format (just 64bit int). That will allow > > qemu or future kernels to use that for other things (as long as a validity check is > > possible) if we dont have a kvm bus. > > > > Now: > > > > old guest, old host: > > works. > > > > old guest, new host: > > the cookie from the guest contains junk, the host needs to detect that the cookie is > > junk and ignores it. It will return the new cookie anyway. > > > > new guest, old host: > > The guest will get a junk cookie and pass it back to the host. But the host will ignore > > it anyway. > > > > new guest, new host: > > works. > > > > So... > > Acked-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> > > Yes, that sounds sane; I'll give it a try later. > > However, I'd rather not want to rush this; I'd prefer to get the > initial version in first. Well planning to obsolete an interface from the start sounds wrong somehow. We could always drop ccw in 3.9 if we feel we need more time, but to me, this looks like a minor enough change to do even after the merge window closed. Want me to write you a spec patch too? > I'll do a v4 later. Right, just return 0 and it'll work.
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 02:48:38PM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > On 26/02/13 14:41, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >> So... > >> Acked-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> > > > > So let's apply the patch for 3.9 and > > Give us 1 or 2 days testing for regression and then this can go for 3.9. > The host changes can then be deferred to a later point in time. Nod. > > avoid caring about "old guests" much? > > Well caring about old guests is related to caring about malicious guests. > Maybe we should make it explicit in the spec that the token can be wrong > or omitted. Just to avoid that anybody starts to optimize things too > aggressive. > > Ok? > > Christian Absolutely, we can't trust the guest anyway. It's just an optimization hint, must validate and if it fails do a linear lookup.
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 15:56:43 +0200 "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 02:29:07PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 13:13:39 +0100 > > Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > On 26/02/13 12:18, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > virtio_ccw: pass a cookie value to kvm hypercall > > > > > > > > Lookups by channel/vq pair on host during virtio notifications might be > > > > expensive. Interpret hypercall return value as a cookie which host can > > > > use to do device lookups for the next notification more efficiently. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/s390/kvm/virtio_ccw.c b/drivers/s390/kvm/virtio_ccw.c > > > > index 2029b6c..1054f3a 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/s390/kvm/virtio_ccw.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/s390/kvm/virtio_ccw.c > > > > @@ -77,6 +77,7 @@ struct virtio_ccw_vq_info { > > > > void *queue; > > > > struct vq_info_block *info_block; > > > > struct list_head node; > > > > + long cookie; > > > > }; > > > > > > > > #define KVM_VIRTIO_CCW_RING_ALIGN 4096 > > > > @@ -145,15 +146,18 @@ static int ccw_io_helper(struct virtio_ccw_device *vcdev, > > > > } > > > > > > > > static inline long do_kvm_notify(struct subchannel_id schid, > > > > - unsigned long queue_index) > > > > + unsigned long queue_index, > > > > + long cookie) > > > > { > > > > register unsigned long __nr asm("1") = KVM_S390_VIRTIO_CCW_NOTIFY; > > > > register struct subchannel_id __schid asm("2") = schid; > > > > register unsigned long __index asm("3") = queue_index; > > > > register long __rc asm("2"); > > > > + register long __cookie asm("4") = cookie; > > > > > > > > asm volatile ("diag 2,4,0x500\n" > > > > - : "=d" (__rc) : "d" (__nr), "d" (__schid), "d" (__index) > > > > + : "=d" (__rc) : "d" (__nr), "d" (__schid), "d" (__index), > > > > + "d"(__cookie) > > > > : "memory", "cc"); > > > > return __rc; > > > > } > > > > @@ -166,7 +170,7 @@ static void virtio_ccw_kvm_notify(struct virtqueue *vq) > > > > > > > > vcdev = to_vc_device(info->vq->vdev); > > > > ccw_device_get_schid(vcdev->cdev, &schid); > > > > - do_kvm_notify(schid, virtqueue_get_queue_index(vq)); > > > > + info->cookie = do_kvm_notify(schid, virtqueue_get_queue_index(vq), info->cookie); > > > > } > > > > > > > > static int virtio_ccw_read_vq_conf(struct virtio_ccw_device *vcdev, > > > > > > > > > Hmmm, forget my last mail. This actually could be even forward and backward compatible. > > > In the virtio spec we will not define the cookie format (just 64bit int). That will allow > > > qemu or future kernels to use that for other things (as long as a validity check is > > > possible) if we dont have a kvm bus. > > > > > > Now: > > > > > > old guest, old host: > > > works. > > > > > > old guest, new host: > > > the cookie from the guest contains junk, the host needs to detect that the cookie is > > > junk and ignores it. It will return the new cookie anyway. > > > > > > new guest, old host: > > > The guest will get a junk cookie and pass it back to the host. But the host will ignore > > > it anyway. > > > > > > new guest, new host: > > > works. > > > > > > So... > > > Acked-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> > > > > Yes, that sounds sane; I'll give it a try later. > > > > However, I'd rather not want to rush this; I'd prefer to get the > > initial version in first. > > Well planning to obsolete an interface from the start sounds wrong > somehow. We could always drop ccw in 3.9 if we feel we need more > time, but to me, this looks like a minor enough change to do even after > the merge window closed. This was aimed at the exploitation; I'm fine with this patch for 3.9 after we let it mature for a day or two. > > Want me to write you a spec patch too? That would be great. > > > I'll do a v4 later. > > Right, just return 0 and it'll work. >
On 26/02/13 12:18, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > virtio_ccw: pass a cookie value to kvm hypercall > > Lookups by channel/vq pair on host during virtio notifications might be > expensive. Interpret hypercall return value as a cookie which host can > use to do device lookups for the next notification more efficiently. > > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> Seems to work fine. (as expected). Tested-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> Reviewed-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> > > --- > > diff --git a/drivers/s390/kvm/virtio_ccw.c b/drivers/s390/kvm/virtio_ccw.c > index 2029b6c..1054f3a 100644 > --- a/drivers/s390/kvm/virtio_ccw.c > +++ b/drivers/s390/kvm/virtio_ccw.c > @@ -77,6 +77,7 @@ struct virtio_ccw_vq_info { > void *queue; > struct vq_info_block *info_block; > struct list_head node; > + long cookie; > }; > > #define KVM_VIRTIO_CCW_RING_ALIGN 4096 > @@ -145,15 +146,18 @@ static int ccw_io_helper(struct virtio_ccw_device *vcdev, > } > > static inline long do_kvm_notify(struct subchannel_id schid, > - unsigned long queue_index) > + unsigned long queue_index, > + long cookie) > { > register unsigned long __nr asm("1") = KVM_S390_VIRTIO_CCW_NOTIFY; > register struct subchannel_id __schid asm("2") = schid; > register unsigned long __index asm("3") = queue_index; > register long __rc asm("2"); > + register long __cookie asm("4") = cookie; > > asm volatile ("diag 2,4,0x500\n" > - : "=d" (__rc) : "d" (__nr), "d" (__schid), "d" (__index) > + : "=d" (__rc) : "d" (__nr), "d" (__schid), "d" (__index), > + "d"(__cookie) > : "memory", "cc"); > return __rc; > } > @@ -166,7 +170,7 @@ static void virtio_ccw_kvm_notify(struct virtqueue *vq) > > vcdev = to_vc_device(info->vq->vdev); > ccw_device_get_schid(vcdev->cdev, &schid); > - do_kvm_notify(schid, virtqueue_get_queue_index(vq)); > + info->cookie = do_kvm_notify(schid, virtqueue_get_queue_index(vq), info->cookie); > } > > static int virtio_ccw_read_vq_conf(struct virtio_ccw_device *vcdev, >
diff --git a/drivers/s390/kvm/virtio_ccw.c b/drivers/s390/kvm/virtio_ccw.c index 2029b6c..1054f3a 100644 --- a/drivers/s390/kvm/virtio_ccw.c +++ b/drivers/s390/kvm/virtio_ccw.c @@ -77,6 +77,7 @@ struct virtio_ccw_vq_info { void *queue; struct vq_info_block *info_block; struct list_head node; + long cookie; }; #define KVM_VIRTIO_CCW_RING_ALIGN 4096 @@ -145,15 +146,18 @@ static int ccw_io_helper(struct virtio_ccw_device *vcdev, } static inline long do_kvm_notify(struct subchannel_id schid, - unsigned long queue_index) + unsigned long queue_index, + long cookie) { register unsigned long __nr asm("1") = KVM_S390_VIRTIO_CCW_NOTIFY; register struct subchannel_id __schid asm("2") = schid; register unsigned long __index asm("3") = queue_index; register long __rc asm("2"); + register long __cookie asm("4") = cookie; asm volatile ("diag 2,4,0x500\n" - : "=d" (__rc) : "d" (__nr), "d" (__schid), "d" (__index) + : "=d" (__rc) : "d" (__nr), "d" (__schid), "d" (__index), + "d"(__cookie) : "memory", "cc"); return __rc; } @@ -166,7 +170,7 @@ static void virtio_ccw_kvm_notify(struct virtqueue *vq) vcdev = to_vc_device(info->vq->vdev); ccw_device_get_schid(vcdev->cdev, &schid); - do_kvm_notify(schid, virtqueue_get_queue_index(vq)); + info->cookie = do_kvm_notify(schid, virtqueue_get_queue_index(vq), info->cookie); } static int virtio_ccw_read_vq_conf(struct virtio_ccw_device *vcdev,