7:04 a.m.
On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 08:28:52 +0100
Erik Skultety <eskultet(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 04:38:56PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Feb 2021 16:57:44 -0600
> Jonathon Jongsma <jjongsma(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 1 Feb 2021 11:33:08 +0100
> > Erik Skultety <eskultet(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 09:48:11AM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 10:45:43AM +0100, Erik Skultety wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 09:42:32AM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 05:34:36PM -0600, Jonathon Jongsma
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 17:43:54 +0100
> > > > > > > Erik Skultety <eskultet(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Tested with v6.10.0-283-g1948d4e61e.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 1.Can define/start/destroy mdev device
successfully;
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 2.'virsh nodedev-list' has no
'--active' option, which is
> > > > > > > > > inconsistent with the description in the
patch：
> > > > > > > > > # virsh nodedev-list --active
> > > > > > > > > error: command 'nodedev-list'
doesn't support option
> > > > > > > > > --active
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 3.virsh client hang when trying to destroy a
mdev device
> > > > > > > > > which is using by a vm, and after that all
'virsh nodev*'
> > > > > > > > > cmds will hang. If restarting llibvirtd
after that,
> > > > > > > > > libvirtd will hang.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It hangs because underneath a write to the
'remove' sysfs
> > > > > > > > attribute is now blocking for some reason and
since we're
> > > > > > > > relying on mdevctl to do it for us, hence
"it hangs". I'm
> > > > > > > > not trying to make an excuse, it's plain
wrong. I'd love to
> > > > > > > > rely on such a basic functionality, but it looks
like we'll
> > > > > > > > have to go with a extremely ugly workaround and
try to get
> > > > > > > > the list of active domains from the nodedev
driver and see
> > > > > > > > whether any of them has the device assigned
before we try
> > > > > > > > to destroy the mdev via the nodedev driver.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, I've been trying to figure out a way to do
this, but as
> > > > > > > far as I know, there's no way to get a list of
active domains
> > > > > > > from within the nodedev driver, and I can't think
of any
> > > > > > > better ways to handle it. Any ideas?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Correct, the nodedev driver isn't permitted to talk to
any of
> > > > > > the virt drivers.
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh, not even via secondary connection? What makes nodedev so
> > > > > special, since we can open a secondary connection from e.g. the
> > > > > storage driver?
> > > >
> > > > It is technically possible, but it should never be done, because it
> > > > introduces a bi-directional dependancy between the daemons which
> > > > introduces the danger of deadlocking them. None of the secondary
> > > > drivers should connect to the hypervisor drivers.
> > > >
> > > > > > Is there anything in sysfs which reports whether the device
is
> > > > > > in use ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Nothing that I know of, the way it used to work was that you
> > > > > tried to write to sysfs and kernel returned a write error with
> > > > > "device in use" or something like that, but that has
changed
> > > > > since :(.
> > >
> > > Without having tried this and since mdevctl is just a Bash script,
> > > can we bypass mdevctl on destroys a little bit by constructing the
> > > path to the sysfs attribute ourselves and perform a non-blocking
> > > write of zero bytes to see if we get an error? If so, we'll skip
> > > mdevctl and report an error. If we don't, we'll invoke mdevctl to
> > > remove the device in order to remain consistent. Would that be an
> > > acceptable workaround (provided it would work)?
> >
> > As far as I can tell, this doesn't work. According to my
> > tests, attempting to write zero bytes to $(mdev_sysfs_path)/remove
> > doesn't result in an error if the mdev is in use by a vm. It just
> > "successfully" writes zero bytes. Adding Alex to cc in case he has
an
> > idea for a workaround here.
>
> [Cc +Connie]
>
> I'm not really sure why mdevs are unique here. When we write to
> remove, the first step is to release the device from the driver, so
> it's really the same as an unbind for a vfio-pci device. PCI drivers
> cannot return an error, an unbind is handled not as a request, but a
> directive, so when the device is in use we block until the unbind can
> complete. With vfio-pci (and added upstream to the mdev core -
> depending on vendor support), the driver remove callback triggers a
> virtual interrupt to the user asking to cooperatively return the device
> (triggering a hot-unplug in QEMU). Has this really worked so well in
> vfio-pci that we've forgotten that an unbind can block there too or are
> we better about tracking something with PCI devices vs mdevs?
Does any of the current vendor guest drivers for mdev support unplug? While
I'm not trying to argue that unpluging a vfio-pci cannot block, it just works
seamlessly in majority of cases nowadays, but I guess we were in the same
situation with PCI assignment in the past?
I think this will only work for ccw right now (when using QEMU from
current git). Channel devices always support unplug (it's not a request
on the guest side, it's a notification.)
The whole point here is IMO about a massive inconvenience for a library
consumer to be blocked on an operation and not knowing why, whereas when you
return an instant error saying why the operation cannot be completed right now
that opens the door for a necessary adjustment in their usage of the library.
>
> On idea for a solution would be that vfio only allows a single open of a
> group at a time, so if libvirt were to open the group it could know
> that it's unused. If you can manage to close the group once you've
> already triggered the remove/unbind, then I'd think the completion of
> the write would be deterministic. If the group is in use elsewhere,
> the open should get back an -EBUSY and you probably ought to be careful
Honestly, ^this seems like a fairly straightforward workaround to me.
Erik
> about removing/unbinding it anyway. It might be possible to implement
> this in mdevctl too, ie. redirect /dev/null to group file and fork,
> fork the echo 1 > remove, kill the redirect, return a device in use
> error if the initial redirect fails. Thanks,
>
> Alex
Hacking something like that into mdevctl might be a good idea.