Re: [PATCH v2 01/10] vfio: ccw: Moving state change out of IRQ context

From: Pierre Morel
Date: Tue Jun 05 2018 - 10:23:21 EST

On 05/06/2018 15:52, Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 15:34:52 +0200
Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 04/06/2018 15:52, Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Fri, 25 May 2018 12:21:09 +0200
Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Let's move the state change from the IRQ routine to the
workqueue callback.

Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_drv.c | 20 +++++++-------------
drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_fsm.c | 14 ++++++++------
2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
This causes a change in behaviour for devices in the notoper state.

- vfio_ccw_sch_irq is called
This should not be done if the subchannel is not operational.

- via the state machine, disabling the subchannel is (re-)triggered
I removed the fsm_disabled_irq() callback from VFIO_CCW_STATE_NOT_OPER
because the subchannel is not even initialized at that moment.
We have no reference to the subchannel.

In the previous driver NOT_OPER and STANDBY were quite the same.
Now NOT_OPER means "we can not operate on this sub channel"
because we do not have it in a correct state (no ISC, no mediated device,
the probe is not finiched)

Now STANDBY means we have the device ready but is disabled.
In this case the software infrastructure is ready and if an interrupt comes
(what should not happen) we will disable the subchannel again.

With your patch:
- the work function is queued in any case; eventually, it will change
the device's state to idle (unless we don't have an mdev at that
point in time)
- completion is signaled

I'm not sure that's what we want.
Yes it is queued in any case but the IRQ is really treated only if the
subchannel is in the right state (STANDBY, BUSY, IDLE and QUIESCING).

In the NOT_OPER state we do not have the mdev not the driver initialized.
But all of this is only true after the whole series has been applied,
isn't it? Is there any way to do the changes without breaking things

I will think about this.
May be just disable the all thing untill all patches applied?

What would also be very helpful is a sketch of the state machine after
your rework is done. Otherwise, this leaves me a bit unsure about the
intended semantics if I just look at the individual patches.

Right, I must enhance the cover letter.

Pierre Morel
Linux/KVM/QEMU in BÃblingen - Germany