Virtualization - Jul 2020 - [PATCH 3/7] vhost_vdpa: implement IRQ offloading functions in vhost_vdpa

On 2020/7/15 ??4:56, Zhu, Lingshan wrote:
>
>
> On 7/15/2020 4:51 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
>>
>> On 2020/7/13 ??5:47, Zhu, Lingshan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/13/2020 4:22 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2020/7/12 ??10:49, Zhu Lingshan wrote:
>>>>> This patch introduce a set of functions for setup/unsetup
>>>>> and update irq offloading respectively by
register/unregister
>>>>> and re-register the irq_bypass_producer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Zhu Lingshan <lingshan.zhu at
intel.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> ? drivers/vhost/vdpa.c | 69 
>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>> ? 1 file changed, 69 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vdpa.c b/drivers/vhost/vdpa.c
>>>>> index 2fcc422..92683e4 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/vhost/vdpa.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/vhost/vdpa.c
>>>>> @@ -115,6 +115,63 @@ static irqreturn_t
vhost_vdpa_config_cb(void
>>>>> *private)
>>>>> ????? return IRQ_HANDLED;
>>>>> ? }
>>>>> ? +static void vhost_vdpa_setup_vq_irq(struct vdpa_device
*dev,
>>>>> int qid, int irq)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +??? struct vhost_vdpa *v = vdpa_get_drvdata(dev);
>>>>> +??? struct vhost_virtqueue *vq = &v->vqs[qid];
>>>>> +??? int ret;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +??? vq_err(vq, "setup irq bypass for vq %d with irq =
%d\n", qid,
>>>>> irq);
>>>>> +??? spin_lock(&vq->call_ctx.ctx_lock);
>>>>> +??? if (!vq->call_ctx.ctx)
>>>>> +??????? return;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +??? vq->call_ctx.producer.token = vq->call_ctx.ctx;
>>>>> +??? vq->call_ctx.producer.irq = irq;
>>>>> +??? ret =
irq_bypass_register_producer(&vq->call_ctx.producer);
>>>>> +??? spin_unlock(&vq->call_ctx.ctx_lock);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +??? if (unlikely(ret))
>>>>> +??????? vq_err(vq,
>>>>> +??????? "irq bypass producer (token %p registration
fails: %d\n",
>>>>> +??????? vq->call_ctx.producer.token, ret);
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not sure this deserves a vq_err(), irq will be relayed through 
>>>> eventfd if irq bypass manager can't work.
>>> OK, I see vq_err() will eventfd_signal err_ctx than just print a 
>>> message, will remove all vq_err().
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static void vhost_vdpa_unsetup_vq_irq(struct vdpa_device
*dev,
>>>>> int qid)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +??? struct vhost_vdpa *v = vdpa_get_drvdata(dev);
>>>>> +??? struct vhost_virtqueue *vq = &v->vqs[qid];
>>>>> +
>>>>> +??? spin_lock(&vq->call_ctx.ctx_lock);
>>>>> +
irq_bypass_unregister_producer(&vq->call_ctx.producer);
>>>>> +??? spin_unlock(&vq->call_ctx.ctx_lock);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +??? vq_err(vq, "unsetup irq bypass for vq %d\n",
qid);
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why call vq_err() here?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static void vhost_vdpa_update_vq_irq(struct
vhost_virtqueue *vq)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +??? struct eventfd_ctx *ctx;
>>>>> +??? void *token;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +??? spin_lock(&vq->call_ctx.ctx_lock);
>>>>> +??? ctx = vq->call_ctx.ctx;
>>>>> +??? token = vq->call_ctx.producer.token;
>>>>> +??? if (ctx == token)
>>>>> +??????? return;
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Need do unlock here.
>>> sure!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +??? if (!ctx && token)
>>>>> +
irq_bypass_unregister_producer(&vq->call_ctx.producer);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +??? if (ctx && ctx != token) {
>>>>> +
irq_bypass_unregister_producer(&vq->call_ctx.producer);
>>>>> +??????? vq->call_ctx.producer.token = ctx;
>>>>> +
irq_bypass_register_producer(&vq->call_ctx.producer);
>>>>> +??? }
>>>>> +
>>>>> +??? spin_unlock(&vq->call_ctx.ctx_lock);
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This should be rare so I'd use simple codes just do
unregister and
>>>> register.
>>>
>>> do you mean remove "if (ctx && ctx != token)"? I
think this could be
>>> useful, we should only update it when ctx!=NULL and ctx!= existing 
>>> token.
>>>
>>
>> I meant something like:
>>
>> unregister();
>> vq->call_ctx.producer.token = ctx;
>> register();
> This is what we are doing now, or I must missed somethig:
> if (ctx && ctx != token) {
> 	irq_bypass_unregister_producer(&vq->call_ctx.producer);
> 	vq->call_ctx.producer.token = ctx;
> 	irq_bypass_register_producer(&vq->call_ctx.producer);
>
> }
>
> It just unregister and register.

I meant there's probably no need for the check and another check and 
unregister before. The whole function is as simple as I suggested above.

Thanks

>
> Thanks,
> BR
> Zhu Lingshan