Message ID | 0-v1-7355d38b9344+17481-vfio1_jgg@nvidia.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | Embed struct vfio_device in all sub-structures | expand |
On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 17:38:42 -0400 Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote: > This series: > > The main focus of this series is to make VFIO follow the normal kernel > convention of structure embedding for structure inheritance instead of > linking using a 'void *opaque'. Here we focus on moving the vfio_device to > be a member of every struct vfio_XX_device that is linked by a > vfio_add_group_dev(). > > In turn this allows 'struct vfio_device *' to be used everwhere, and the > public API out of vfio.c can be cleaned to remove places using 'struct > device *' and 'void *' as surrogates to refer to the device. > > While this has the minor trade off of moving 'struct vfio_device' the > clarity of the design is worth it. I can speak directly to this idea, as > I've invested a fair amount of time carefully working backwards what all > the type-erased APIs are supposed to be and it is certainly not trivial or > intuitive. > > When we get into mdev land things become even more inscrutable, and while > I now have a pretty clear picture, it was hard to obtain. I think this > agrees with the kernel style ideal of being explicit in typing and not > sacrificing clarity to create opaque structs. > > After this series the general rules are: > - Any vfio_XX_device * can be obtained at no cost from a vfio_device * > using container_of(), and the reverse is possible by &XXdev->vdev > > This is similar to how 'struct pci_device' and 'struct device' are > interrelated. > > This allows 'device_data' to be completely removed from the vfio.c API. > > - The drvdata for a struct device points at the vfio_XX_device that > belongs to the driver that was probed. drvdata is removed from the core > code, and only used as part of the implementation of the struct > device_driver. > > - The lifetime of vfio_XX_device and vfio_device are identical, they are > the same memory. > > This follows the existing model where vfio_del_group_dev() blocks until > all vfio_device_put()'s are completed. This in turn means the struct > device_driver remove() blocks, and thus under the driver_lock() a bound > driver must have a valid drvdata pointing at both vfio device > structs. A following series exploits this further. > > Most vfio_XX_device structs have data that duplicates the 'struct > device *dev' member of vfio_device, a following series removes that > duplication too. > > Jason > > Jason Gunthorpe (10): > vfio: Simplify the lifetime logic for vfio_device > vfio: Split creation of a vfio_device into init and register ops > vfio/platform: Use vfio_init/register/unregister_group_dev > vfio/fsl-mc: Use vfio_init/register/unregister_group_dev > vfio/pci: Use vfio_init/register/unregister_group_dev > vfio/mdev: Use vfio_init/register/unregister_group_dev > vfio/mdev: Make to_mdev_device() into a static inline > vfio: Make vfio_device_ops pass a 'struct vfio_device *' instead of > 'void *' > vfio/pci: Replace uses of vfio_device_data() with container_of > vfio: Remove device_data from the vfio bus driver API > > Documentation/driver-api/vfio.rst | 48 ++-- > drivers/vfio/fsl-mc/vfio_fsl_mc.c | 69 +++--- > drivers/vfio/fsl-mc/vfio_fsl_mc_private.h | 1 + > drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_private.h | 5 +- > drivers/vfio/mdev/vfio_mdev.c | 57 +++-- > drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c | 109 +++++---- > drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_private.h | 1 + > drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_amba.c | 8 +- > drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform.c | 21 +- > drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_common.c | 56 ++--- > drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_private.h | 5 +- > drivers/vfio/vfio.c | 210 ++++++------------ > include/linux/vfio.h | 37 +-- > 13 files changed, 299 insertions(+), 328 deletions(-) > This looks great. As Christoph noted, addressing those init vs register races in the bus drivers don't seem too difficult or out of scope for this series. Thanks, Alex
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 04:52:47PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > This looks great. As Christoph noted, addressing those init vs > register races in the bus drivers don't seem too difficult or out of > scope for this series. Thanks, Sure, I'm happy to add it. I need to check vfio-pci closely that there is no hidden dependency, but fsl looked fine I'll look at splitting patch 1 as well and send a v2. Thanks Jason