Re: [PATCH V3 6/9] virtio-ccw: implement synchronize_cbs()

[Halil Pasic]

On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 10:54:24 +0200
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 25 2022, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 10:44:15AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:  
> >> This patch tries to implement the synchronize_cbs() for ccw. For the
> >> vring_interrupt() that is called via virtio_airq_handler(), the
> >> synchronization is simply done via the airq_info's lock. For the
> >> vring_interrupt() that is called via virtio_ccw_int_handler(), a per
> >> device spinlock for irq is introduced ans used in the synchronization
> >> method.
> >> 
> >> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: Halil Pasic <pasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx>  
> >
> >
> > This is the only one that is giving me pause. Halil, Cornelia,
> > should we be concerned about the performance impact here?
> > Any chance it can be tested?  
> 
> We can have a bunch of devices using the same airq structure, and the
> sync cb creates a choke point, same as registering/unregistering. If
> invoking the sync cb is a rare operation (same as (un)registering), it
> should not affect interrupt processing for other devices too much, but
> it really should be rare.

With the notable difference that the critical section in sync_cb is
basically empty, so it should be less intrusive that register/unregister.

I would also argue, that since after the reset we (re-)discover our
virtqueues and (re-)register adapter interrupts, and thus before or as a
part of the reset we probably do an unregister to clean up the adapter
interrupts and de-allocate the bits in the info, this should not incur
any mayor overhead for the airq case, which is the preferred one.

Or am I missing something?

> 
> For testing, you would probably want to use a setup with many devices
> that share the same airq area (you can fit a lot of devices if they have
> few queues), generate traffic on the queues, and then do something that
> triggers the callback (adding/removing a new device in a loop?)
> 
> I currently don't have such a setup handy; Halil, would you be able to
> test that?

Neither do I. I would also have to start from scratch. I guess it would
be also sufficient to do a setup with two devices: a nic with many busy
queues, and another device that is responsible for generating the resets.

Regards,
Halil
> 
> >  
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>  1 file changed, 27 insertions(+)
> >> 
> >> diff --git a/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c b/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c
> >> index d35e7a3f7067..c19f07a82d62 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c
> >> @@ -62,6 +62,7 @@ struct virtio_ccw_device {
> >>  	unsigned int revision; /* Transport revision */
> >>  	wait_queue_head_t wait_q;
> >>  	spinlock_t lock;
> >> +	spinlock_t irq_lock;
> >>  	struct mutex io_lock; /* Serializes I/O requests */
> >>  	struct list_head virtqueues;
> >>  	bool is_thinint;
> >> @@ -984,6 +985,27 @@ static const char *virtio_ccw_bus_name(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> >>  	return dev_name(&vcdev->cdev->dev);
> >>  }
> >>  
> >> +static void virtio_ccw_synchronize_cbs(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> >> +{
> >> +	struct virtio_ccw_device *vcdev = to_vc_device(vdev);
> >> +	struct airq_info *info = vcdev->airq_info;
> >> +
> >> +	/*
> >> +	 * Synchronize with the vring_interrupt() called by
> >> +	 * virtio_ccw_int_handler().
> >> +	 */
> >> +	spin_lock(&vcdev->irq_lock);
> >> +	spin_unlock(&vcdev->irq_lock);
> >> +
> >> +	if (info) {
> >> +		/*
> >> +		 * Synchronize with the vring_interrupt() with airq indicator
> >> +		 */
> >> +		write_lock(&info->lock);
> >> +		write_unlock(&info->lock);
> >> +	}  
> 
> I think we can make this an either/or operation (devices will either use
> classic interrupts or adapter interrupts)?

Right, for virtqueue notifications. I second Connie's motion!

> 
> >> +}
> >> +
> >>  static const struct virtio_config_ops virtio_ccw_config_ops = {
> >>  	.get_features = virtio_ccw_get_features,
> >>  	.finalize_features = virtio_ccw_finalize_features,  
>