On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 19:18:30 -0500
Tony Krowiak <akrow...@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >>>> +static bool vfio_ap_assign_apid_to_apcb(struct ap_matrix_mdev
> >>>> *matrix_mdev,
> >>>> + unsigned long apid)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> + unsigned long apqi, apqn;
> >>>> + unsigned long *aqm = matrix_mdev->shadow_apcb.aqm;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + /*
> >>>> + * If the APID is already assigned to the guest's shadow APCB,
> >>>> there is
> >>>> + * no need to assign it.
> >>>> + */
> >>>> + if (test_bit_inv(apid, matrix_mdev->shadow_apcb.apm))
> >>>> + return false;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + /*
> >>>> + * If no domains have yet been assigned to the shadow APCB and
> >>>> one or
> >>>> + * more domains have been assigned to the matrix mdev, then use
> >>>> + * the domains assigned to the matrix mdev; otherwise, there is
> >>>> nothing
> >>>> + * to assign to the shadow APCB.
> >>>> + */
> >>>> + if (bitmap_empty(matrix_mdev->shadow_apcb.aqm, AP_DOMAINS)) {
> >>>> + if (bitmap_empty(matrix_mdev->matrix.aqm, AP_DOMAINS))
> >>>> + return false;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + aqm = matrix_mdev->matrix.aqm;
> >>>> + }
> >>>> +
> >>>> + /* Make sure all APQNs are bound to the vfio_ap driver */
> >>>> + for_each_set_bit_inv(apqi, aqm, AP_DOMAINS) {
> >>>> + apqn = AP_MKQID(apid, apqi);
> >>>> +
> >>>> + if (vfio_ap_mdev_get_queue(matrix_mdev, apqn) == NULL)
> >>>> + return false;
> >>>> + }
> >>>> +
> >>>> + set_bit_inv(apid, matrix_mdev->shadow_apcb.apm);
> >>>> +
> >>>> + /*
> >>>> + * If we verified APQNs using the domains assigned to the
> >>>> matrix mdev,
> >>>> + * then copy the APQIs of those domains into the guest's APCB
> >>>> + */
> >>>> + if (bitmap_empty(matrix_mdev->shadow_apcb.aqm, AP_DOMAINS))
> >>>> + bitmap_copy(matrix_mdev->shadow_apcb.aqm,
> >>>> + matrix_mdev->matrix.aqm, AP_DOMAINS);
> >>>> +
> >>>> + return true;
> >>>> +}
> >>> What is the rationale behind the shadow aqm empty special handling?
> >> The rationale was to avoid taking the VCPUs
> >> out of SIE in order to make an update to the guest's APCB
> >> unnecessarily. For example, suppose the guest is started
> >> without access to any APQNs (i.e., all matrix and shadow_apcb
> >> masks are zeros). Now suppose the administrator proceeds to
> >> start assigning AP resources to the mdev. Let's say he starts
> >> by assigning adapters 1 through 100. The code below will return
> >> true indicating the shadow_apcb was updated. Consequently,
> >> the calling code will commit the changes to the guest's
> >> APCB. The problem there is that in order to update the guest's
> >> VCPUs, they will have to be taken out of SIE, yet the guest will
> >> not get access to the adapter since no domains have yet been
> >> assigned to the APCB. Doing this 100 times - once for each
> >> adapter 1-100 - is probably a bad idea.
> >>
> > Not yanking the VCPUs out of SIE does make a lot of sense. At least
> > I understand your motivation now. I will think some more about this,
> > but in the meanwhile, please try to answer one more question (see
> > below).
> >
> >>> I.e.
> >>> why not simply:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> static bool vfio_ap_assign_apid_to_apcb(struct ap_matrix_mdev
> >>> *matrix_mdev,
> >>> unsigned long apid)
> >>> {
> >>> unsigned long apqi, apqn;
> >>> unsigned long *aqm = matrix_mdev->shadow_apcb.aqm;
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> /*
> >>> * If the APID is already assigned to the guest's shadow APCB,
> >>> there is
> >>> * no need to assign it.
> >>> */
> >>> if (test_bit_inv(apid, matrix_mdev->shadow_apcb.apm))
> >>> return false;
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> /* Make sure all APQNs are bound to the vfio_ap driver */
> >>> for_each_set_bit_inv(apqi, aqm, AP_DOMAINS) {
> >>> apqn = AP_MKQID(apid, apqi);
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> if (vfio_ap_mdev_get_queue(matrix_mdev, apqn) == NULL)
> >>> return false;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> set_bit_inv(apid, matrix_mdev->shadow_apcb.apm);
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> return true;
> > Would
> > s/return true/return !bitmap_empty(matrix_mdev->shadow_apcb.aqm,
> > AP_DOMAINS)/
> > do the trick?
> >
> > I mean if empty, then we would not commit the APCB, so we would
> > not take the vCPUs out of SIE -- see below.
>
> At first glance I'd say yes, it does the trick; but, I need to consider
> all possible scenarios. For example, that will work fine when someone
> either assigns all of the adapters or all of the domains first, then assigns
> the other.
Maybe I can help you. The only caveat I have in mind is the show of the
guest_matrix attribute. We probably don't want to display adapters
without domains and vice-versa. But that can be easily handled with
a flag.
Regards,
Halil
