Re: [Qemu-ppc] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/5] hw/ppc: removing spapr_drc_detach_cb opaques

[Daniel Henrique Barboza]

On 05/02/2017 12:40 AM, Bharata B Rao wrote:

On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 10:55 PM, Daniel Henrique Barboza <address@hidden> wrote:

Following up the previous detach_cb change, this patch removes the
detach_cb_opaque entirely from the code.

The reason is that the drc->detach_cb_opaque object can't be
restored in the post load of the upcoming DRC migration and no detach
callbacks actually need this opaque. 'spapr_core_release' is
receiving it as NULL, 'spapr_phb_remove_pci_device_cb' is receiving
a phb object as opaque but is't using it. These were trivial removal
cases.

However, the LM removal callback 'spapr_lmb_release' is receiving
and using the opaque object, a 'sPAPRDIMMState' struct. This struct
holds the number of LMBs the DIMM object contains and the callback
was using this counter as a countdown to check if all LMB DRCs were
release before proceeding to the DIMM unplug. To remove the need of
this callback we have choices such as:

- migrate the 'sPAPRDIMMState' struct. This would require creating a
QTAILQ to store all DIMMStates and an additional 'dimm_id' field to
associate the DIMMState with the DIMM object. We could attach this
QTAILQ to the 'sPAPRPHBState' and retrieve it later in the callback.

- fetch the state of the LMB DRCs directly by scanning the state of
them and, if all of them are released, proceed with the DIMM unplug.

The second approach was chosen. The new 'spapr_all_lmbs_drcs_released'
function scans all LMBs of a given DIMM device to see if their DRC
state are inactive. If all of them are inactive return 'true', 'false'
otherwise. This function is being called inside the 'spapr_lmb_release'
callback, replacing the role of the 'sPAPRDIMMState' opaque. The
'sPAPRDIMMState' struct was removed from the code given that there are
no more uses for it.

After all these changes, there are no roles left for the 'detach_cb_opaque'
attribute of the 'sPAPRDRConnector' as well, so we can safely remove
it from the code too.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Henrique Barboza <address@hidden>
---
 hw/ppc/spapr.c             | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
 hw/ppc/spapr_drc.c         | 16 +++++-----------
 hw/ppc/spapr_pci.c         |  4 ++--
 include/hw/ppc/spapr_drc.h |  6 ++----
 4 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)

diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr.c b/hw/ppc/spapr.c
index bc11757..8b9a6cf 100644
--- a/hw/ppc/spapr.c
+++ b/hw/ppc/spapr.c
@@ -1887,21 +1887,43 @@ static void spapr_drc_reset(void *opaque)
     }
 }

-typedef struct sPAPRDIMMState {
-    uint32_t nr_lmbs;
-} sPAPRDIMMState;
+static bool spapr_all_lmbs_drcs_released(PCDIMMDevice *dimm)
+{
+    Error *local_err = NULL;
+    PCDIMMDeviceClass *ddc = PC_DIMM_GET_CLASS(dimm);
+    MemoryRegion *mr = ddc->get_memory_region(dimm);
+    uint64_t size = memory_region_size(mr);
+
+    uint64_t addr;
+    addr = object_property_get_int(OBJECT(dimm), PC_DIMM_ADDR_PROP, &local_err);
+    if (local_err) {
+        error_propagate(&error_abort, local_err);
+        return false;
+    }
+    uint32_t nr_lmbs = size / SPAPR_MEMORY_BLOCK_SIZE;

-static void spapr_lmb_release(DeviceState *dev, void *opaque)
+    sPAPRDRConnector *drc;
+    int i = 0;
+    for (i = 0; i < nr_lmbs; i++) {
+        drc = spapr_dr_connector_by_id(SPAPR_DR_CONNECTOR_TYPE_LMB,
+                addr / SPAPR_MEMORY_BLOCK_SIZE);
+        g_assert(drc);
+        if (drc->indicator_state != SPAPR_DR_INDICATOR_STATE_INACTIVE) {
+            return false;
+        }
+        addr += SPAPR_MEMORY_BLOCK_SIZE;
+    }
+    return true;
+}
+
+static void spapr_lmb_release(DeviceState *dev)
 {
-    sPAPRDIMMState *ds = (sPAPRDIMMState *)opaque;
     HotplugHandler *hotplug_ctrl;

-    if (--ds->nr_lmbs) {
+    if (!spapr_all_lmbs_drcs_released(PC_DIMM(dev))) {
         return;
     }

I am concerned about the number of times we walk the DRC list corresponding to each DIMM device. When a DIMM device is being removed, spapr_lmb_release() will be invoked for each of the LMBs of that DIMM. Now in this scheme, we end up walking through all the DRC objects of the DIMM from every LMB's release function.

Hi Bharata,


I agree, this is definitely a poorer performance than simply decrementing ds->nr_lmbs.
The reasons why I went on with it:

- hot unplug isn't an operation that happens too often, so it's not terrible
to have a delay increase here;

- it didn't increased the unplug delay in an human noticeable way, at least in
my tests;

- apart from migrating the information, there is nothing much we can do in the
callback side about it. The callback isn't aware of the current state of the DIMM
removal process, so the scanning is required every time.


All that said, assuming that the process of DIMM removal will always go through
'spapr_del_lmbs', why do we need this callback? Can't we simply do something
like this in spapr_del_lmbs?


diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr.c b/hw/ppc/spapr.c
index cd42449..e443fea 100644
--- a/hw/ppc/spapr.c
+++ b/hw/ppc/spapr.c
@@ -2734,6 +2734,20 @@ static void spapr_del_lmbs(DeviceState *dev, uint64_t addr_start, uint64_t size,
         addr += SPAPR_MEMORY_BLOCK_SIZE;
     }
 
+    if (!spapr_all_lmbs_drcs_released(PC_DIMM(dev))) {
+        // something went wrong in the removal of the LMBs.
+        // propagate error and return
+        throw_error_code;
+        return;
+    }
+
+    /*
+     * Now that all the LMBs have been removed by the guest, call the
+     * pc-dimm unplug handler to cleanup up the pc-dimm device.
+     */
+    hotplug_ctrl = qdev_get_hotplug_handler(dev);
+    hotplug_handler_unplug(hotplug_ctrl, dev, &error_abort);
+
     drc = spapr_dr_connector_by_id(SPAPR_DR_CONNECTOR_TYPE_LMB,
                                    addr_start / SPAPR_MEMORY_BLOCK_SIZE);
     drck = SPAPR_DR_CONNECTOR_GET_CLASS(drc);


With this change we run the LMB scanning once at the end of the for
loop inside spapr_del_lmbs to make sure everything went fine (something
that the current code  isn't doing, there are operationsvbeing done afterwards
without checking if the LMB removals actually happened).

If something went wrong, propagate an error. If not, proceed with the removal
of the DIMM device and the remaining spapr_del_lmbs code. spapr_lmb_release can
be safely removed from the code after that.


What do you think?


Daniel
 

Regards,

Bharata.