Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/3] s390x/pci: remove idx from msix msg data

[Cornelia Huck]

On Tue, 5 Sep 2017 16:44:37 +0800
Yi Min Zhao <address@hidden> wrote:

> 在 2017/9/5 下午4:29, Cornelia Huck 写道:
> > On Fri,  1 Sep 2017 06:22:56 +0200
> > Yi Min Zhao <address@hidden> wrote:
> >  
> >> PCIDevice pointer has been a parameter of kvm_arch_fixup_msi_route().
> >> So we don't need to store zpci idx in msix message data to find out the
> >> specific zpci device. Instead, we could use pci device id to find its
> >> corresponding zpci device.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Yi Min Zhao <address@hidden>
> >> ---
> >>   hw/s390x/s390-pci-bus.c  | 16 +++++-----------
> >>   hw/s390x/s390-pci-bus.h  |  2 ++
> >>   hw/s390x/s390-pci-inst.c | 24 ------------------------
> >>   hw/s390x/s390-pci-stub.c |  6 ++++++
> >>   target/s390x/kvm.c       |  7 +++++--
> >>   5 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/hw/s390x/s390-pci-bus.c b/hw/s390x/s390-pci-bus.c
> >> index 0a31a4ae88..bd8a3e1e1c 100644
> >> --- a/hw/s390x/s390-pci-bus.c
> >> +++ b/hw/s390x/s390-pci-bus.c
> >> @@ -199,8 +199,8 @@ static S390PCIBusDevice 
> >> *s390_pci_find_dev_by_uid(S390pciState *s, uint16_t uid)
> >>       return NULL;
> >>   }
> >>   
> >> -static S390PCIBusDevice *s390_pci_find_dev_by_target(S390pciState *s,
> >> -                                                     const char *target)
> >> +S390PCIBusDevice *s390_pci_find_dev_by_target(S390pciState *s,
> >> +                                              const char *target)
> >>   {
> >>       S390PCIBusDevice *pbdev;
> >>   
> >> @@ -465,19 +465,13 @@ static void s390_msi_ctrl_write(void *opaque, hwaddr 
> >> addr, uint64_t data,
> >>                                   unsigned int size)
> >>   {
> >>       S390PCIBusDevice *pbdev = opaque;
> >> -    uint32_t idx = data >> ZPCI_MSI_VEC_BITS;
> >>       uint32_t vec = data & ZPCI_MSI_VEC_MASK;
> >>       uint64_t ind_bit;
> >>       uint32_t sum_bit;
> >> -    uint32_t e = 0;
> >>   
> >> -    DPRINTF("write_msix data 0x%" PRIx64 " idx %d vec 0x%x\n", data, idx, 
> >> vec);
> >> -
> >> -    if (!pbdev) {
> >> -        e |= (vec << ERR_EVENT_MVN_OFFSET);
> >> -        s390_pci_generate_error_event(ERR_EVENT_NOMSI, idx, 0, addr, e);
> >> -        return;
> >> -    }
> >> +    assert(pbdev);  
> > I'm wondering whether you could/should generate an error event here.
> > The one above probably won't work (as it seems to take idx as a
> > parameter), but is this really 'this must not happen, we messed up in
> > our code'? (Probably yes, but I want to be sure.)  
> I think this must not happen. One a pci device is plugged into zPCI bus.
> We would assign a new memory region with zpci device as opaque
> for its msix. So if s390_msi_ctrl_write() is called, there must be a write
> operation to a pci device's msix ctrl memory region which must has zpci
> device as a opaque. The construct is one-msi-mr-per-pci-device.

This makes sense.

> >  
> >> +    DPRINTF("write_msix data 0x%" PRIx64 " idx %d vec 0x%x\n", data,
> >> +            pbdev->idx, vec);
> >>   
> >>       if (pbdev->state != ZPCI_FS_ENABLED) {
> >>           return;
> >> diff --git a/hw/s390x/s390-pci-stub.c b/hw/s390x/s390-pci-stub.c
> >> index 7a642d376c..e501e1b9ea 100644
> >> --- a/hw/s390x/s390-pci-stub.c
> >> +++ b/hw/s390x/s390-pci-stub.c
> >> @@ -74,3 +74,9 @@ S390PCIBusDevice *s390_pci_find_dev_by_idx(S390pciState 
> >> *s, uint32_t idx)
> >>   {
> >>       return NULL;
> >>   }  
> > Please remove s390_pci_find_dev_by_idx() from the stubs file, as it is
> > not used outside of the conditionally-built pci code anymore.  
> I'm confused. s390_pci_find_dev_by_idx() can be called in 
> kvm_arch_fixup_msi_route().
> And kvm_arch_fixup_msi_route() can be called by kvm_irqchip_add_msi_route().
> As the code, I think s390_pci_find_dev_by_idx() might be called. Could 
> you please
> explain more?

But this patch replaces this with s390_pci_find_dev_by_target(), no?

> >  
> >> +
> >> +S390PCIBusDevice *s390_pci_find_dev_by_target(S390pciState *s,
> >> +                                              const char *target)
> >> +{
> >> +    return NULL;
> >> +}
> >> diff --git a/target/s390x/kvm.c b/target/s390x/kvm.c
> >> index 1338c29528..3d490c5e4b 100644
> >> --- a/target/s390x/kvm.c
> >> +++ b/target/s390x/kvm.c
> >> @@ -2533,10 +2533,13 @@ int kvm_arch_fixup_msi_route(struct 
> >> kvm_irq_routing_entry *route,
> >>                                uint64_t address, uint32_t data, PCIDevice 
> >> *dev)
> >>   {
> >>       S390PCIBusDevice *pbdev;
> >> -    uint32_t idx = data >> ZPCI_MSI_VEC_BITS;
> >>       uint32_t vec = data & ZPCI_MSI_VEC_MASK;
> >>   
> >> -    pbdev = s390_pci_find_dev_by_idx(s390_get_phb(), idx);
> >> +    if (!dev) {
> >> +        return -ENODEV;  
> > Can this actually happen?  
> I think this cannot happen. But I'm afraid that I miss something.
> So I added this to avoid NULL pointer. But from the code and
> my test, there has not been NULL pointer happened.

I'm wondering if that is in the same category as the instance I
commented on above. Do you want to log something?

> >  
> >> +    }
> >> +
> >> +    pbdev = s390_pci_find_dev_by_target(s390_get_phb(), DEVICE(dev)->id);
> >>       if (!pbdev) {
> >>           DPRINTF("add_msi_route no dev\n");
> >>           return -ENODEV;  
> >  
>