Re: [Qemu-ppc] [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH 11/14] spapr_pci: Allow EEH on spapr-pci-host-bridge

[Alex Williamson]

On Thu, 2015-09-24 at 11:49 +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 11:28:01AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Sat, 2015-09-19 at 17:18 +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> > > The pseries machine type has two variants of the PCI Host Bridge device:
> > > spapr-pci-host-bridge and spapr-pci-vfio-host-bridge.  Originally, only 
> > > the
> > > latter could support VFIO devices, but we've now extended the VFIO code so
> > > that they both can.
> > > 
> > > However, it's still only spapr-pci-vfio-host-bridge which supports the 
> > > PAPR
> > > Enhanced Error Handling (EEH) interfaces.  The reason is that we don't yet
> > > have a way to determine the correct VFIOGroup for EEH operations on the
> > > "plain" host bridge.
> > > 
> > > Handling this in general is problematic due to some limitations in the
> > > current code, and some bugs in the kernel EEH interfaces.  However, it's
> > > easy enough to do for the unambiguous case: where there is only one VFIO
> > > group used on the whole host bridge i.e. one Partitionable Endpoint (PE).
> > > 
> > > This re-implements spapr_phb_check_vfio_group() in terms of the host
> > > bridge's Partitionable Endpoints, allowing EEH on any host bridge in the
> > > unambiguous case.  This is enough to make spapr-pci-host-bridge support
> > > EEH as well as spapr-pci-vfio-host-bridge, since the latter only supported
> > > devices from one IOMMU group anyway (although it didn't properly
> > > enforce that).
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: David Gibson <address@hidden>
> > > ---
> > >  hw/ppc/spapr_pci.c          | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  hw/ppc/spapr_pci_vfio.c     | 18 ------------------
> > >  include/hw/pci-host/spapr.h |  1 -
> > >  3 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr_pci.c b/hw/ppc/spapr_pci.c
> > > index 81ad3ae..5614b45 100644
> > > --- a/hw/ppc/spapr_pci.c
> > > +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr_pci.c
> > > @@ -41,6 +41,8 @@
> > >  #include "hw/ppc/spapr_drc.h"
> > >  #include "sysemu/device_tree.h"
> > >  
> > > +#include "hw/vfio/vfio-common.h"
> > > +
> > >  /* Copied from the kernel arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/msi.c */
> > >  #define RTAS_QUERY_FN           0
> > >  #define RTAS_CHANGE_FN          1
> > > @@ -446,6 +448,40 @@ static sPAPRPHBGuestPE 
> > > *spapr_phb_pe_by_device(sPAPRPHBState *phb,
> > >      return pe;
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > +static int spapr_phb_check_vfio_group(sPAPRPHBState *phb, VFIOGroup 
> > > **gpp)
> > > +{
> > > +    sPAPRPHBGuestPE *pe;
> > > +
> > > +    if (QLIST_EMPTY(&phb->pe_list)) {
> > > +        /* No EEH capable devices on this PHB */
> > > +        return RTAS_OUT_PARAM_ERROR;
> > > +    }
> > > +
> > > +    /* Limitations in both qemu and the kernel mean that, for now, EEH
> > > +     * won't work if there are devices from more than one PE
> > > +     * (i.e. IOMMU group) on the same PHB */
> > > +    pe = QLIST_FIRST(&phb->pe_list);
> > > +    if (QLIST_NEXT(pe, list)) {
> > > +        error_report("spapr-pci-host-bridge: EEH attempted on PHB with 
> > > multiple"
> > > +                     " IOMMU groups");
> > 
> > Don't wrap lines with search-able strings
> 
> Noted.
> 
> > > +        return RTAS_OUT_HW_ERROR;
> > > +    }
> > > +
> > > +    if (!object_dynamic_cast(OBJECT(phb), "spapr-pci-vfio-host-bridge")) 
> > > {
> > > +        sPAPRPHBVFIOState *svphb = SPAPR_PCI_VFIO_HOST_BRIDGE(phb);
> > > +        /* FIXME: this is an abstraction violation */
> > > +        if (pe->group->groupid != svphb->iommugroupid) {
> > > +            error_report("spapr-pci-vfio-host-bridge: Bad IOMMU group");
> > > +            return RTAS_OUT_HW_ERROR;
> > > +        }
> > > +    }
> > > +
> > > +    if (gpp) {
> > > +        *gpp = pe->group;
> > > +    }
> > > +    return RTAS_OUT_SUCCESS;
> > 
> > 
> > The structure of this function finally makes some sense once we get
> > here.
> 
> Yeah, I started off with something more like what you suggested in
> earlier comments, but I changed to this rather awkward structure to
> avoid churning the callers as this moves towards its final form
> 
> > I'm still not sure whether RTAS error codes make sense though,
> > but it's just a nit.
> 
> Well, (nearly) all the callers are in RTAS, and translating the error
> codes there seems pretty ugly too.
> 
> > I'd still prefer the function was renamed, "check"
> > indicates a verification, not a return.  The primary purpose of calling
> > this function is to get a group, not simply to check the validity.
> 
> Yeah, it's a crap name.  How about spapr_phb_find_vfio_group().

Why not just spapr_phb_get_vfio_group() since this started out as just a
wrapper for vfio_get_group() and that's still what it's doing even
though it's now cached on sPAPRPHBGuestPE rather than retrieved each
time.

> Fwiw, I plan to make this function go away to as I rework things to
> remove the one-group-per-PHB restriction.

I figured, thanks for taking on the challenge of cleaning up this
layering.

Alex

> > > +}
> > > +
> > >  static void rtas_ibm_set_eeh_option(PowerPCCPU *cpu,
> > >                                      sPAPRMachineState *spapr,
> > >                                      uint32_t token, uint32_t nargs,
> > > diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr_pci_vfio.c b/hw/ppc/spapr_pci_vfio.c
> > > index b61923c..a08292a 100644
> > > --- a/hw/ppc/spapr_pci_vfio.c
> > > +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr_pci_vfio.c
> > > @@ -24,29 +24,11 @@
> > >  #include "hw/vfio/vfio.h"
> > >  #include "hw/vfio/vfio-eeh.h"
> > >  
> > > -#include "hw/vfio/vfio-common.h"
> > > -
> > >  static Property spapr_phb_vfio_properties[] = {
> > >      DEFINE_PROP_INT32("iommu", sPAPRPHBVFIOState, iommugroupid, -1),
> > >      DEFINE_PROP_END_OF_LIST(),
> > >  };
> > >  
> > > -int spapr_phb_check_vfio_group(sPAPRPHBState *phb, VFIOGroup **gpp)
> > > -{
> > > -    VFIOGroup *group;
> > > -
> > > -    if (!object_dynamic_cast(OBJECT(phb), "spapr-pci-vfio-host-bridge")) 
> > > {
> > > -        return RTAS_OUT_PARAM_ERROR;
> > > -    }
> > > -
> > > -    /* FIXME: this is an abstraction violation */
> > > -    group = vfio_get_group(SPAPR_PCI_VFIO_HOST_BRIDGE(phb)->iommugroupid,
> > > -                           &phb->iommu_as);
> > > -    if (gpp)
> > > -        *gpp = group;
> > > -    return RTAS_OUT_SUCCESS;
> > > -}
> > > -
> > >  static void spapr_phb_vfio_finish_realize(sPAPRPHBState *sphb, Error 
> > > **errp)
> > >  {
> > >      sPAPRPHBVFIOState *svphb = SPAPR_PCI_VFIO_HOST_BRIDGE(sphb);
> > > diff --git a/include/hw/pci-host/spapr.h b/include/hw/pci-host/spapr.h
> > > index 535e5ef..8c8d187 100644
> > > --- a/include/hw/pci-host/spapr.h
> > > +++ b/include/hw/pci-host/spapr.h
> > > @@ -138,7 +138,6 @@ void spapr_pci_msi_init(sPAPRMachineState *spapr, 
> > > hwaddr addr);
> > >  
> > >  void spapr_pci_rtas_init(void);
> > >  
> > > -int spapr_phb_check_vfio_group(sPAPRPHBState *phb, VFIOGroup **gpp);
> > >  sPAPRPHBState *spapr_pci_find_phb(sPAPRMachineState *spapr, uint64_t 
> > > buid);
> > >  PCIDevice *spapr_pci_find_dev(sPAPRMachineState *spapr, uint64_t buid,
> > >                                uint32_t config_addr);
> > 
> > 
> > 
>