Virtualization - May 2019 - [PATCH 06/10] s390/cio: add basic protected virtualization support

On Wed, 15 May 2019 22:51:58 +0200
Halil Pasic <pasic at linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2019 11:41:36 +0200
> Cornelia Huck <cohuck at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 20:32:41 +0200
> > Halil Pasic <pasic at linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >   
> > > As virtio-ccw devices are channel devices, we need to use the dma
area
> > > for any communication with the hypervisor.
> > > 
> > > This patch addresses the most basic stuff (mostly what is
required for
> > > virtio-ccw), and does take care of QDIO or any devices.  
> > 
> > "does not take care of QDIO", surely?   
> 
> I did not bother making the QDIO library code use dma memory for
> anything that is conceptually dma memory. AFAIK QDIO is out of scope for
> prot virt for now. If one were to do some emulated qdio with prot virt
> guests, one wound need to make a bunch of things shared.
And unless you wanted to support protected virt under z/VM as well, it
would be wasted effort :)
> 
> > (Also, what does "any devices"
> > mean? Do you mean "every arbitrary device", perhaps?)  
> 
> What I mean is: this patch takes care of the core stuff, but any
> particular device is likely to have to do more -- that is it ain't all
> the cio devices support prot virt with this patch. For example
> virtio-ccw needs to make sure that the ccws constituting the channel
> programs, as well as the data pointed by the ccws is shared. If one
> would want to make vfio-ccw DASD pass-through work under prot virt, one
> would need to make sure, that everything that needs to be shared is
> shared (data buffers, channel programs).
> 
> Does is clarify things?
That's what I thought, but the sentence was confusing :) What about

"This patch addresses the most basic stuff (mostly what is required to
support virtio-ccw devices). It handles neither QDIO devices, nor
arbitrary non-virtio-ccw devices." ?
> 
> >   
> > > 
> > > An interesting side effect is that virtio structures are now
going to
> > > get allocated in 31 bit addressable storage.  
> > 
> > Hm...
> >   
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic <pasic at linux.ibm.com>
> > > ---
> > >  arch/s390/include/asm/ccwdev.h   |  4 +++
> > >  drivers/s390/cio/ccwreq.c        |  8 ++---
> > >  drivers/s390/cio/device.c        | 65
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> > >  drivers/s390/cio/device_fsm.c    | 40 ++++++++++++-------------
> > >  drivers/s390/cio/device_id.c     | 18 +++++------
> > >  drivers/s390/cio/device_ops.c    | 21 +++++++++++--
> > >  drivers/s390/cio/device_pgid.c   | 20 ++++++-------
> > >  drivers/s390/cio/device_status.c | 24 +++++++--------
> > >  drivers/s390/cio/io_sch.h        | 21 +++++++++----
> > >  drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c | 10 -------
> > >  10 files changed, 148 insertions(+), 83 deletions(-)  
> > 
> > (...)
> >   
> > > diff --git a/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c
b/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c
> > > index 6d989c360f38..bb7a92316fc8 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c
> > > @@ -66,7 +66,6 @@ struct virtio_ccw_device {
> > >  	bool device_lost;
> > >  	unsigned int config_ready;
> > >  	void *airq_info;
> > > -	u64 dma_mask;
> > >  };
> > >  
> > >  struct vq_info_block_legacy {
> > > @@ -1255,16 +1254,7 @@ static int virtio_ccw_online(struct
ccw_device *cdev)
> > >  		ret = -ENOMEM;
> > >  		goto out_free;
> > >  	}
> > > -
> > >  	vcdev->vdev.dev.parent = &cdev->dev;
> > > -	cdev->dev.dma_mask = &vcdev->dma_mask;
> > > -	/* we are fine with common virtio infrastructure using 64 bit
DMA */
> > > -	ret = dma_set_mask_and_coherent(&cdev->dev,
DMA_BIT_MASK(64));
> > > -	if (ret) {
> > > -		dev_warn(&cdev->dev, "Failed to enable 64-bit
DMA.\n");
> > > -		goto out_free;
> > > -	}  
> > 
> > This means that vring structures now need to fit into 31 bits as well,
> > I think?  
> 
> Nod.
> 
> > Is there any way to reserve the 31 bit restriction for channel
> > subsystem structures and keep vring in the full 64 bit range? (Or am I
> > fundamentally misunderstanding something?)
> >   
> 
> At the root of this problem is that the DMA API basically says devices
> may have addressing limitations expressed by the dma_mask, while our
> addressing limitations are not coming from the device but from the IO
> arch: e.g. orb.cpa and ccw.cda are 31 bit addresses. In our case it
> depends on how and for what is the device going to use the memory (e.g.
> buffers addressed by MIDA vs IDA vs direct).
> 
> Virtio uses the DMA properties of the parent, that is in our case the
> struct device embedded in struct ccw_device.
> 
> The previous version (RFC) used to allocate all the cio DMA stuff from
> this global cio_dma_pool using the css0.dev for the DMA API
> interactions. And we set *css0.dev.dma_mask == DMA_BIT_MASK(31) so
> e.g. the allocated ccws are 31 bit addressable.
> 
> But I was asked to change this so that when I allocate DMA memory for a
> channel program of particular ccw device, a struct device of that ccw
> device is used as the first argument of dma_alloc_coherent().
> 
> Considering
> 
> void *dma_alloc_attrs(struct device *dev, size_t size, dma_addr_t
*dma_handle,
>                 gfp_t flag, unsigned long attrs)
> {
>         const struct dma_map_ops *ops = get_dma_ops(dev);
>         void *cpu_addr;
> 
>         WARN_ON_ONCE(dev && !dev->coherent_dma_mask);
> 
>         if (dma_alloc_from_dev_coherent(dev, size, dma_handle,
&cpu_addr))
>                 return cpu_addr;
> 
>         /* let the implementation decide on the zone to allocate from: */
>         flag &= ~(__GFP_DMA | __GFP_DMA32 | __GFP_HIGHMEM);
> 
> that is the GFP flags dropped that implies that we really want
> cdev->dev restricted to 31 bit addressable memory because we can't
tell
> (with the current common DMA code) hey but this piece of DMA mem you
> are abot to allocate for me must be 31 bit addressable (using GFP_DMA
> as we usually do).
> 
> So, as described in the commit message, the vring stuff being forced
> into ZONE_DMA is an unfortunate consequence of this all.
Yeah. I hope 31 bits are enough for that as well.
> 
> A side note: making the subchannel device 'own' the DMA stuff of a
ccw
> device (something that was discussed in the RFC thread) is tricky
> because the ccw device may outlive the subchannel (all that orphan
> stuff).
Yes, that's... eww. Not really a problem for virtio-ccw devices (which
do not support the disconnected state), but can we make DMA and the
subchannel moving play nice with each other at all?
> 
> So the answer is: it is technically possible (e.g. see RFC) but it comes
> at a price, and I see no obviously brilliant solution.
> 
> Regards,
> Halil
> 
> > > -
> > >  	vcdev->config_block =
kzalloc(sizeof(*vcdev->config_block),
> > >  				   GFP_DMA | GFP_KERNEL);
> > >  	if (!vcdev->config_block) {  
> >   
>

On Thu, 16 May 2019 08:29:28 +0200
Cornelia Huck <cohuck at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 May 2019 22:51:58 +0200
> Halil Pasic <pasic at linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 13 May 2019 11:41:36 +0200
> > Cornelia Huck <cohuck at redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 20:32:41 +0200
> > > Halil Pasic <pasic at linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >   
> > > > As virtio-ccw devices are channel devices, we need to use
the dma area
> > > > for any communication with the hypervisor.
> > > > 
> > > > This patch addresses the most basic stuff (mostly what is
required for
> > > > virtio-ccw), and does take care of QDIO or any devices.  
> > > 
> > > "does not take care of QDIO", surely?   
> > 
> > I did not bother making the QDIO library code use dma memory for
> > anything that is conceptually dma memory. AFAIK QDIO is out of scope
for
> > prot virt for now. If one were to do some emulated qdio with prot virt
> > guests, one wound need to make a bunch of things shared.
> 
> And unless you wanted to support protected virt under z/VM as well, it
> would be wasted effort :)
> 
:)
> > 
> > > (Also, what does "any devices"
> > > mean? Do you mean "every arbitrary device", perhaps?)  
> > 
> > What I mean is: this patch takes care of the core stuff, but any
> > particular device is likely to have to do more -- that is it ain't
all
> > the cio devices support prot virt with this patch. For example
> > virtio-ccw needs to make sure that the ccws constituting the channel
> > programs, as well as the data pointed by the ccws is shared. If one
> > would want to make vfio-ccw DASD pass-through work under prot virt,
one
> > would need to make sure, that everything that needs to be shared is
> > shared (data buffers, channel programs).
> > 
> > Does is clarify things?
> 
> That's what I thought, but the sentence was confusing :) What about
> 
> "This patch addresses the most basic stuff (mostly what is required to
> support virtio-ccw devices). It handles neither QDIO devices, nor
> arbitrary non-virtio-ccw devices." ?
>
Don't like the second sentence. How about "It handles neither QDIO
in the common code, nor any device type specific stuff (like channel
programs constructed by the DADS driver)."

My problem is that this patch is about the common infrastructure code,
and virtio-ccw specific stuff is handled by subsequent patches of this
series.

[..]
> > > Is there any way to reserve the 31 bit restriction for channel
> > > subsystem structures and keep vring in the full 64 bit range? (Or
> > > am I fundamentally misunderstanding something?)
> > >   
> > 
> > At the root of this problem is that the DMA API basically says
> > devices may have addressing limitations expressed by the dma_mask,
> > while our addressing limitations are not coming from the device but
> > from the IO arch: e.g. orb.cpa and ccw.cda are 31 bit addresses. In
> > our case it depends on how and for what is the device going to use
> > the memory (e.g. buffers addressed by MIDA vs IDA vs direct).
> > 
> > Virtio uses the DMA properties of the parent, that is in our case the
> > struct device embedded in struct ccw_device.
> > 
> > The previous version (RFC) used to allocate all the cio DMA stuff
> > from this global cio_dma_pool using the css0.dev for the DMA API
> > interactions. And we set *css0.dev.dma_mask == DMA_BIT_MASK(31) so
> > e.g. the allocated ccws are 31 bit addressable.
> > 
> > But I was asked to change this so that when I allocate DMA memory
> > for a channel program of particular ccw device, a struct device of
> > that ccw device is used as the first argument of
> > dma_alloc_coherent().
> > 
> > Considering
> > 
> > void *dma_alloc_attrs(struct device *dev, size_t size, dma_addr_t
> > *dma_handle, gfp_t flag, unsigned long attrs)
> > {
> >         const struct dma_map_ops *ops = get_dma_ops(dev);
> >         void *cpu_addr;
> > 
> >         WARN_ON_ONCE(dev && !dev->coherent_dma_mask);
> > 
> >         if (dma_alloc_from_dev_coherent(dev, size, dma_handle,
> > &cpu_addr)) return cpu_addr;
> > 
> >         /* let the implementation decide on the zone to allocate
> > from: */ flag &= ~(__GFP_DMA | __GFP_DMA32 | __GFP_HIGHMEM);
> > 
> > that is the GFP flags dropped that implies that we really want
> > cdev->dev restricted to 31 bit addressable memory because we
can't
> > tell (with the current common DMA code) hey but this piece of DMA
> > mem you are abot to allocate for me must be 31 bit addressable
> > (using GFP_DMA as we usually do).
> > 
> > So, as described in the commit message, the vring stuff being forced
> > into ZONE_DMA is an unfortunate consequence of this all.
> 
> Yeah. I hope 31 bits are enough for that as well.
> 
> > 
> > A side note: making the subchannel device 'own' the DMA stuff
of a
> > ccw device (something that was discussed in the RFC thread) is tricky
> > because the ccw device may outlive the subchannel (all that orphan
> > stuff).
> 
> Yes, that's... eww. Not really a problem for virtio-ccw devices (which
> do not support the disconnected state), but can we make DMA and the
> subchannel moving play nice with each other at all?
> 
I don't quite understand the question. This series does not have any
problems with that AFAIU. Can you please clarify?

Regards,
Halil

On Sat, 18 May 2019 20:11:00 +0200
Halil Pasic <pasic at linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 May 2019 08:29:28 +0200
> Cornelia Huck <cohuck at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 15 May 2019 22:51:58 +0200
> > Halil Pasic <pasic at linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> Don't like the second sentence. How about "It handles neither QDIO
> in the common code, nor any device type specific stuff (like channel
> programs constructed by the DADS driver)."
Sounds good to me (with s/DADS/DASD/ :)
> > > A side note: making the subchannel device 'own' the DMA
stuff of a
> > > ccw device (something that was discussed in the RFC thread) is
tricky
> > > because the ccw device may outlive the subchannel (all that
orphan
> > > stuff).  
> > 
> > Yes, that's... eww. Not really a problem for virtio-ccw devices
(which
> > do not support the disconnected state), but can we make DMA and the
> > subchannel moving play nice with each other at all?
> >   
> 
> I don't quite understand the question. This series does not have any
> problems with that AFAIU. Can you please clarify?
Wait, weren't you saying that there actually is a problem?

We seem to have the following situation:
- the device per se is represented by the ccw device
- the subchannel is the means of communication, and dma is tied to the
  (I/O ?) subchannel
- the machine check handling code may move a ccw device to a different
  subchannel, or even to a fake subchannel (orphanage handling)

The moving won't happen with virtio-ccw devices (as they do not support
the disconnected state, which is a prereq for being moved around), but
at a glance, this looks like it is worth some more thought.

- Are all (I/O) subchannels using e.g. the same dma size? (TBH, that
  question sounds a bit silly: that should be a property belonging to
  the ccw device, shouldn't it?)
- What dma properties does the fake subchannel have? (Probably none, as
  its only purpose is to serve as a parent for otherwise parentless
  disconnected ccw devices, and is therefore not involved in any I/O.)
- There needs to be some kind of handling in the machine check code, I
  guess? We would probably need a different allocation if we end up at
  a different subchannel?

I think we can assume that the dma size is at most 31 bits (since that
is what the common I/O layer needs); but can we also assume that it
will always be at least 31 bits?

My take on this is that we should be sure that we're not digging
ourselves a hole that will be hard to get out of again should we want to
support non-virtio-ccw in the future, not that the current
implementation is necessarily broken.