On 16/11/2017 18:03, Cornelia Huck wrote:How do you suggest this discussion should be structured? Aren't the patches
On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 17:06:58 +0100
Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 16/11/2017 16:23, Tony Krowiak wrote:
On 11/14/2017 08:57 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 15:39:09 -0400Which patches would you squash?
Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 10/13/2017 01:38 PM, Tony Krowiak wrote:I think the approach is fine, and the code also looks fine for the most
Tony Krowiak (19):
KVM: s390: SIE considerations for AP Queue virtualization
KVM: s390: refactor crypto initialization
s390/zcrypt: new AP matrix bus
s390/zcrypt: create an AP matrix device on the AP matrix bus
s390/zcrypt: base implementation of AP matrix device driver
s390/zcrypt: register matrix device with VFIO mediated device
KVM: s390: introduce AP matrix configuration interface
s390/zcrypt: support for assigning adapters to matrix mdev
s390/zcrypt: validate adapter assignment
s390/zcrypt: sysfs interfaces supporting AP domain assignment
s390/zcrypt: validate domain assignment
s390/zcrypt: sysfs support for control domain assignment
s390/zcrypt: validate control domain assignment
KVM: s390: Connect the AP mediated matrix device to KVM
s390/zcrypt: introduce ioctl access to VFIO AP Matrix driver
KVM: s390: interface to configure KVM guest's AP matrix
KVM: s390: validate input to AP matrix config interface
KVM: s390: New ioctl to configure KVM guest's AP matrix
s390/facilities: enable AP facilities needed by guest
part. Some comments:
- various patches can be squashed together to give a better
understanding at a glance
- this needs documentation (as I already said)My plan is to take the cover letter patch and incorporate that into
then replace the cover letter patch with a more concise summary.
- some of the driver/device modelling feels a bit awkward (commented inI am responding to each patch review individually.
patches) -- I'm not sure that my proposal is better, but I think we
should make sure the interdependencies are modeled correctly
I think that instead of responding to each patch individually we should
have a discussion on the design because I think a lot could change and
discussing about each patch as they may be completely redesigned for the
next version may not be very useful.
As stated in a previous email responding to Connie, I decided to scrap the
So I totally agree with Conny on that we should stabilize the
I think it would be here a good place to start the discussion on things
like we started to discuss, Harald and I, off-line:
- why a matrix bus, in which case we can avoid it
I thought it had been agreed that we should be able to ditch it?
I have not see any comment on the matrix bus.
I think that is pretty well spelled out in the cover letter
- which kind of devices we need
What is still unclear? Which card generations to support?
No, I mean the relation bus/device/driver/mdev...
What do you mean by repartition of queues on boot?
- how to handle the repartition of queues on boot, reset and hotplug
I don't understand the need to avoid implementation details. If you recall,
That's something I'd like to see a writeup for.
yes, and it may have an influence on the bus/device/driver/mdev design
What is it that is not clear? This cover letter seeks to describe the
- interaction with the host drivers
The driver model should already handle that, no?
yes it should, but it is not clear for me.
Patches 9, 11, and 13 validate the adapters, domains and control domains
- validation of the matrix for guests and host views
I saw validation code in the patches, although I have not reviewed it.
If the facilities bit (STFLE.65) indicating interrupts are available is not
or even features we need to add like
My understanding is that interrupts are optional so they can be left
out in the first shot. With the gisa (that has not yet been posted), it
should not be too difficult, no?
you are right I forgot that it is optional
I have implemented interception of the PQAP(TAPQ) instruction and will
- PAPQ/TAPQ-t and APQI interception
I can't say anything about that, as this is not documented :(
Right we can live without these too.
Virtualization of AP is not on the table right now.
- virtualization of the AP
Is this really needed? It would complicate everything a lot.
Concern has no sens without interception.
As I stated above, these patches were submitted as an RFC for the purpose of
- CPU model and KVM capabilities
That already has been discussed with the individual patches.
Well, if there are no interceptions the individual patches discussions are enough.
I thought the point of submitting this RFC was to get a sanity check of the
In my understanding these points must be cleared before we really start
to discuss the details of the implementation.
The general design already looks fine to me. Do you really expect that
a major redesign is needed?
I am eliminating the matrix bus - based on comments made by Connie for an
I am worry about the following:
- Will the matrix bus be accepted
TBD, but I don't anticipate a major overhaul of the design to accommodate
- What happens on host reset and hot plug/unplug in host
- What happens with the queues on guest start/halt/restart