Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 4/4] s390x/css: support ccw IDA

[Halil Pasic]

On 09/19/2017 11:48 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 13:50:05 +0800
> Dong Jia Shi <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
>> * Halil Pasic <address@hidden> [2017-09-13 13:50:29 +0200]:
>>
>>> Let's add indirect data addressing support for our virtual channel
>>> subsystem. This implementation does no bother with any kind of
>>> prefetching. We simply step trough the IDAL on demand.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic <address@hidden>
>>> ---
>>>  hw/s390x/css.c | 109 
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>>  1 file changed, 108 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/hw/s390x/css.c b/hw/s390x/css.c
>>> index 6b0cd8861b..e34b2af4eb 100644
>>> --- a/hw/s390x/css.c
>>> +++ b/hw/s390x/css.c
>>> @@ -819,6 +819,113 @@ incr:
>>>      return 0;
>>>  }
>>>
>>> +/* returns values between 1 and bsz, where bs is a power of 2 */
>>> +static inline uint16_t ida_continuous_left(hwaddr cda, uint64_t bsz)
>>> +{
>>> +    return bsz - (cda & (bsz - 1));
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static inline uint64_t ccw_ida_block_size(uint8_t flags)
>>> +{
>>> +    return 1ULL << (((flags ^ CDS_F_C64) & (CDS_F_C64 | CDS_F_I2K)) ? 11 : 
>>> 12);  
>> If CDS_F_C64 is set, (flags ^ CDS_F_C64) will be 0, so (1ULL << 11) will
>> be the result regardless the I2K flag? The logic seems wrong.

No. If CDS_F_C64 is set then the outcome depends on the fact if
CDS_F_I2K is set or not.
(flags & CDS_F_IK) => ((flags ^ CDS_F_C64) & CDS_F_IK)
"(flags ^ CDS_F_C64) will be 0" is wrong. flags ^ CDS_F_C64
just flips the CDS_F_C64.

OTOH if the CDS_F_C64 was not set we have the corresponding
bit set in flags ^ CDS_F_C64 so then the  CDS_F_I2K bit does
not matter: we have 1ULL << 11.

In my reading the logic is good.

> 
> I've stared at that condition now for a bit, but all it managed was to
> get me more confused... probably just need a break.
> 
>>
>> I2K is meaningful only when C64 is 1, otherwise it is ignored. The logic
>> here should be:
>> if ((flags & CDS_F_C64) && !(flags & CDS_F_I2K)) {
>>     return 1ULL << 12;
>> }
>>     return 1ULL << 11;
> 
> But I do think your version is more readable...
> 

I won't argue with this.

>>
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static inline int ida_read_next_idaw(CcwDataStream *cds)
>>> +{
>>> +    union {uint64_t fmt2; uint32_t fmt1; } idaw;  
>>                                            ^
>> Nit.
>>

Maybe checkpatch wanted it this way. My memories are blurry.

>>> +    bool is_fmt2 = cds->flags & CDS_F_C64;
>>> +    int ret;
>>> +    hwaddr idaw_addr;
>>> +
>>> +    if (is_fmt2) {
>>> +        idaw_addr = cds->cda_orig + sizeof(idaw.fmt2) * cds->at_idaw;
>>> +        if (idaw_addr & 0x07) {
>>> +            return -EINVAL; /* channel program check */
>>> +        }
>>> +        ret = address_space_rw(&address_space_memory, idaw_addr,
>>> +                               MEMTXATTRS_UNSPECIFIED, (void *) &idaw.fmt2,
>>> +                               sizeof(idaw.fmt2), false);
>>> +        cds->cda = be64_to_cpu(idaw.fmt2);
>>> +    } else {
>>> +        idaw_addr = cds->cda_orig + sizeof(idaw.fmt1) * cds->at_idaw;
>>> +        if (idaw_addr & 0x03) {  
>> ?:
>> (idaw_addr & 0x80000003)
> 
> Yes.
> 

I will double check this. Does not seem unreasonable but
double-checking is better.

>>
>>> +            return -EINVAL; /* channel program check */
>>> +
>>> +        }
>>> +        ret = address_space_rw(&address_space_memory, idaw_addr,
>>> +                               MEMTXATTRS_UNSPECIFIED, (void *) &idaw.fmt1,
>>> +                               sizeof(idaw.fmt1), false);
>>> +        cds->cda = be64_to_cpu(idaw.fmt1);
>>> +    }
>>> +    ++(cds->at_idaw);
>>> +    if (ret != MEMTX_OK) {
>>> +        /* assume inaccessible address */
>>> +        return -EINVAL; /* channel program check */
>>> +
>>> +    }
>>> +    return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static int ccw_dstream_rw_ida(CcwDataStream *cds, void *buff, int len,
>>> +                              CcwDataStreamOp op)
>>> +{
>>> +    uint64_t bsz = ccw_ida_block_size(cds->flags);
>>> +    int ret = 0;
>>> +    uint16_t cont_left, iter_len;
>>> +
>>> +    ret = cds_check_len(cds, len);
>>> +    if (ret <= 0) {
>>> +        return ret;
>>> +    }
>>> +    if (!cds->at_idaw) {
>>> +        /* read first idaw */
>>> +        ret = ida_read_next_idaw(cds);
>>> +        if (ret) {
>>> +            goto err;
>>> +        }
>>> +        cont_left = ida_continuous_left(cds->cda, bsz);
>>> +    } else {
>>> +        cont_left = ida_continuous_left(cds->cda, bsz);
>>> +        if (cont_left == bsz) {
>>> +            ret = ida_read_next_idaw(cds);
>>> +            if (ret) {
>>> +                goto err;
>>> +            }
>>> +            if (cds->cda & (bsz - 1)) {  
>> Could move this check into ida_read_next_idaw?
> 
> I'd like to avoid further code movement...
> 

The first idaw is special. I don't think moving is possible.

>>
>>> +                ret = -EINVAL; /* channel program check */
>>> +                goto err;
>>> +            }
>>> +        }
>>> +    }
>>> +    do {
>>> +        iter_len = MIN(len, cont_left);
>>> +        if (op != CDS_OP_A) {
>>> +            ret = address_space_rw(&address_space_memory, cds->cda,
>>> +                                   MEMTXATTRS_UNSPECIFIED, buff, iter_len, 
>>> op);  
>> Ahh, now I recall that explictly defining CDS_OP_R to 0 and CDS_OP_W to
>> 1 in 'struct CcwDataStreamOp' do have a meaning. Does it make sense to
>> make it more obvious by adding some comment there?
> 
> Would you have a good text for that?
> 

I'm fine with clarifications.

>>
>>> +            if (ret != MEMTX_OK) {
>>> +                /* assume inaccessible address */
>>> +                ret = -EINVAL; /* channel program check */
>>> +                goto err;
>>> +            }
>>> +        }
>>> +        cds->at_byte += iter_len;
>>> +        cds->cda += iter_len;
>>> +        len -= iter_len;
>>> +        if (!len) {
>>> +            break;
>>> +        }
>>> +        ret = ida_read_next_idaw(cds);
>>> +        if (ret) {
>>> +            goto err;
>>> +        }
>>> +        cont_left = bsz;
>>> +    } while (true);
>>> +    return ret;
>>> +err:
>>> +    cds->flags |= CDS_F_STREAM_BROKEN;
>>> +    return ret;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>>  void ccw_dstream_init(CcwDataStream *cds, CCW1 const *ccw, ORB const *orb)
>>>  {
>>>      /*
>>> @@ -835,7 +942,7 @@ void ccw_dstream_init(CcwDataStream *cds, CCW1 const 
>>> *ccw, ORB const *orb)
>>>      if (!(cds->flags & CDS_F_IDA)) {
>>>          cds->op_handler = ccw_dstream_rw_noflags;
>>>      } else {
>>> -        assert(false);
>>> +        cds->op_handler = ccw_dstream_rw_ida;
>>>      }
>>>  }
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> 2.13.5
>>>   
>>
>> Generally, the logic looks fine to me.
>>
> 
> It did pass Halil's test; but that can only test fmt-2 + 4k blocks, as
> this is what the kernel infrastructure provides.

Nod.

> 
> Halil, do you have some more comments?
> 

Just a question. Do I have to respin?

Halil