search for: zpci

On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 13:51:23 +0200 Halil Pasic <pasic at linux.ibm.com> wrote: > Protected virtualization guests have to use shared pages for airq > notifier bit vectors, because hypervisor needs to write these bits. > > Let us make sure we allocate DMA memory for the notifier bit vectors by > replacing the kmem_cache with a dma_cache and kalloc() with > cio_dma_zalloc().

On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 13:51:23 +0200 Halil Pasic <pasic at linux.ibm.com> wrote: > Protected virtualization guests have to use shared pages for airq > notifier bit vectors, because hypervisor needs to write these bits. > > Let us make sure we allocate DMA memory for the notifier bit vectors by > replacing the kmem_cache with a dma_cache and kalloc() with > cio_dma_zalloc().

...t(); > > > > ...but don't check the return code here. Probably a pathological case, > > but shouldn't you handle that error as well? > > > > Tricky business... The problem is that the airq stuff ain't 'private' to > the CIO subsystem (e.g. zPCI). I'm afraid failing to init css won't > really prevent all usages. Architecture-wise, there's an unfortunate tie-in of some things like zPCI with the channel subsystem (most of that seems to come in via chsc and machine checks; but as you say, airq as well). I'd basically consi...

...t(); > > > > ...but don't check the return code here. Probably a pathological case, > > but shouldn't you handle that error as well? > > > > Tricky business... The problem is that the airq stuff ain't 'private' to > the CIO subsystem (e.g. zPCI). I'm afraid failing to init css won't > really prevent all usages. Architecture-wise, there's an unfortunate tie-in of some things like zPCI with the channel subsystem (most of that seems to come in via chsc and machine checks; but as you say, airq as well). I'd basically consi...

...t; ...but don't check the return code here. Probably a pathological case, > > > but shouldn't you handle that error as well? > > > > > > > Tricky business... The problem is that the airq stuff ain't 'private' to > > the CIO subsystem (e.g. zPCI). I'm afraid failing to init css won't > > really prevent all usages. > > Architecture-wise, there's an unfortunate tie-in of some things like > zPCI with the channel subsystem (most of that seems to come in via chsc > and machine checks; but as you say, airq as well)...

Andy, to make it obvious which version is the latest, here is a branch The following changes since commit 6a13feb9c82803e2b815eca72fa7a9f5561d7861: Linux 4.3 (2015-11-01 16:05:25 -0800) are available in the git repository at: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/borntraeger/linux.git dma for you to fetch changes up to fc7f9754db6ce0c12281da4055281f731d36bdee: s390/dma: Allow

Andy, to make it obvious which version is the latest, here is a branch The following changes since commit 6a13feb9c82803e2b815eca72fa7a9f5561d7861: Linux 4.3 (2015-11-01 16:05:25 -0800) are available in the git repository at: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/borntraeger/linux.git dma for you to fetch changes up to fc7f9754db6ce0c12281da4055281f731d36bdee: s390/dma: Allow

...ut_unregister_pmn; > > + airq_init(); > > ...but don't check the return code here. Probably a pathological case, > but shouldn't you handle that error as well? > Tricky business... The problem is that the airq stuff ain't 'private' to the CIO subsystem (e.g. zPCI). I'm afraid failing to init css won't really prevent all usages. My first thought was, that this is more or less analogous to what we had before. Namely kmem_cache_create() and dma_pool_create() should fail under similar circumstances, and the return value of airq_init() was ignored in do...

From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger at de.ibm.com> As virtio-ccw will have dma ops, we can no longer default to the zPCI ones. Make use of dev_archdata to keep the dma_ops per device. The pci devices now use that to override the default, and the default is changed to use the noop ops for everything that does not specify a device specific one. To compile without PCI support we will enable HAS_DMA all the time, via the...

As virtio-ccw will have dma ops, we can no longer default to the zPCI ones. Make use of dev_archdata to keep the dma_ops per device. The pci devices now use that to override the default, and the default is changed to use the noop ops for everything that does not specify a device specific one. To compile without PCI support we will enable HAS_DMA all the time, via the...

...e and use that as long as we don't run out of bits. > For single queue devices, this seems like quite a bit of overhead. > Nod. > Are we expecting many devices in use per guest? This is affect linux in general, not only guest 2 stuff (i.e. we also waste in vanilla lpar mode). And zpci seems to do at least one airq_iv_create() per pci function. > > > > > What speaks against cio_dma_pool is that it is slightly more code, and > > this currently can not be used for very early stuff, which I don't > > think is relevant. > > Unless properly do...

On Sun, 12 May 2019 20:22:56 +0200 Halil Pasic <pasic at linux.ibm.com> wrote: > On Fri, 10 May 2019 16:10:13 +0200 > Cornelia Huck <cohuck at redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, 10 May 2019 00:11:12 +0200 > > Halil Pasic <pasic at linux.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 9 May 2019 12:11:06 +0200 > > > Cornelia Huck <cohuck at

On Sun, 12 May 2019 20:22:56 +0200 Halil Pasic <pasic at linux.ibm.com> wrote: > On Fri, 10 May 2019 16:10:13 +0200 > Cornelia Huck <cohuck at redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, 10 May 2019 00:11:12 +0200 > > Halil Pasic <pasic at linux.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 9 May 2019 12:11:06 +0200 > > > Cornelia Huck <cohuck at

This switches virtio to use the DMA API on Xen and if requested by module option. This fixes virtio on Xen, and it should break anything because it's off by default on everything except Xen PV on x86. To the Xen people: is this okay? If it doesn't work on other Xen variants (PVH? HVM?), can you submit follow-up patches to fix it? To everyone else: we've waffled on this for way too

This switches virtio to use the DMA API on Xen and if requested by module option. This fixes virtio on Xen, and it should break anything because it's off by default on everything except Xen PV on x86. To the Xen people: is this okay? If it doesn't work on other Xen variants (PVH? HVM?), can you submit follow-up patches to fix it? To everyone else: we've waffled on this for way too

This switches virtio to use the DMA API on Xen and if requested by module option. This fixes virtio on Xen, and it should break anything because it's off by default on everything except Xen PV on x86. To the Xen people: is this okay? If it doesn't work on other Xen variants (PVH? HVM?), can you submit follow-up patches to fix it? To everyone else: we've waffled on this for way too

This switches virtio to use the DMA API on Xen and if requested by module option. This fixes virtio on Xen, and it should break anything because it's off by default on everything except Xen PV on x86. To the Xen people: is this okay? If it doesn't work on other Xen variants (PVH? HVM?), can you submit follow-up patches to fix it? To everyone else: we've waffled on this for way too

This switches virtio to use the DMA API on Xen and if requested by module option. This fixes virtio on Xen, and it should break anything because it's off by default on everything except Xen PV on x86. To the Xen people: is this okay? If it doesn't work on other Xen variants (PVH? HVM?), can you submit follow-up patches to fix it? To everyone else: we've waffled on this for way too

This switches virtio to use the DMA API on Xen and if requested by module option. This fixes virtio on Xen, and it should break anything because it's off by default on everything except Xen PV on x86. To the Xen people: is this okay? If it doesn't work on other Xen variants (PVH? HVM?), can you submit follow-up patches to fix it? To everyone else: we've waffled on this for way too