Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC 00/19] KVM: s390/crypto/vfio: guest dedicated crypto adapters | From | Pierre Morel <> | Date | Thu, 16 Nov 2017 21:25:16 +0100 |
| |
On 16/11/2017 18:03, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 17:06:58 +0100 > Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > >> On 16/11/2017 16:23, Tony Krowiak wrote: >>> On 11/14/2017 08:57 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote: >>>> On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 15:39:09 -0400 >>>> Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 10/13/2017 01:38 PM, Tony Krowiak wrote: >>>>> Ping >>>>>> Tony Krowiak (19): >>>>>> KVM: s390: SIE considerations for AP Queue virtualization >>>>>> KVM: s390: refactor crypto initialization >>>>>> s390/zcrypt: new AP matrix bus >>>>>> s390/zcrypt: create an AP matrix device on the AP matrix bus >>>>>> s390/zcrypt: base implementation of AP matrix device driver >>>>>> s390/zcrypt: register matrix device with VFIO mediated device >>>>>> framework >>>>>> KVM: s390: introduce AP matrix configuration interface >>>>>> s390/zcrypt: support for assigning adapters to matrix mdev >>>>>> s390/zcrypt: validate adapter assignment >>>>>> s390/zcrypt: sysfs interfaces supporting AP domain assignment >>>>>> s390/zcrypt: validate domain assignment >>>>>> s390/zcrypt: sysfs support for control domain assignment >>>>>> s390/zcrypt: validate control domain assignment >>>>>> KVM: s390: Connect the AP mediated matrix device to KVM >>>>>> s390/zcrypt: introduce ioctl access to VFIO AP Matrix driver >>>>>> KVM: s390: interface to configure KVM guest's AP matrix >>>>>> KVM: s390: validate input to AP matrix config interface >>>>>> KVM: s390: New ioctl to configure KVM guest's AP matrix >>>>>> s390/facilities: enable AP facilities needed by guest >>>> I think the approach is fine, and the code also looks fine for the most >>>> part. Some comments: >>>> >>>> - various patches can be squashed together to give a better >>>> understanding at a glance >>> Which patches would you squash? >>>> - this needs documentation (as I already said) >>> My plan is to take the cover letter patch and incorporate that into >>> documentation, >>> then replace the cover letter patch with a more concise summary. >>>> - some of the driver/device modelling feels a bit awkward (commented in >>>> patches) -- I'm not sure that my proposal is better, but I think we >>>> should make sure the interdependencies are modeled correctly >>> I am responding to each patch review individually. >> >> I think that instead of responding to each patch individually we should >> have a discussion on the design because I think a lot could change and >> discussing about each patch as they may be completely redesigned for the >> next version may not be very useful. >> >> So I totally agree with Conny on that we should stabilize the >> bus/device/driver modeling. >> >> I think it would be here a good place to start the discussion on things >> like we started to discuss, Harald and I, off-line: >> - why a matrix bus, in which case we can avoid it > > I thought it had been agreed that we should be able to ditch it?
I have not see any comment on the matrix bus.
> >> - which kind of devices we need > > What is still unclear? Which card generations to support?
No, I mean the relation bus/device/driver/mdev...
> >> - how to handle the repartition of queues on boot, reset and hotplug > > That's something I'd like to see a writeup for.
yes, and it may have an influence on the bus/device/driver/mdev design
> >> - interaction with the host drivers > > The driver model should already handle that, no?
yes it should, but it is not clear for me.
> >> - validation of the matrix for guests and host views > > I saw validation code in the patches, although I have not reviewed it. > >> >> or even features we need to add like >> - interruptions > > My understanding is that interrupts are optional so they can be left > out in the first shot. With the gisa (that has not yet been posted), it > should not be too difficult, no?
you are right I forgot that it is optional
> >> - PAPQ/TAPQ-t and APQI interception > > I can't say anything about that, as this is not documented :(
Right we can live without these too.
> >> - virtualization of the AP > > Is this really needed? It would complicate everything a lot.
Concern has no sens without interception. > >> - CPU model and KVM capabilities > > That already has been discussed with the individual patches.
Well, if there are no interceptions the individual patches discussions are enough.
> >> >> In my understanding these points must be cleared before we really start >> to discuss the details of the implementation. > > The general design already looks fine to me. Do you really expect that > a major redesign is needed? >
I am worry about the following: - Will the matrix bus be accepted - What happens on host reset and hot plug/unplug in host - What happens with the queues on guest start/halt/restart
Regards,
Pierre
-- Pierre Morel Linux/KVM/QEMU in Böblingen - Germany
| |