On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 19:27:55 +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 11:54:40 -0400
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 09:47:14AM +0300, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
> > Hi David,
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 6:49 AM David Gibson <dgibson(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 11:01:04 -0400
> > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 05:50:51PM +0300, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
> > > [...]ÂÂ
> > >
> > > Right. After detecting just failing unconditionally it a bit too
> > > simplistic IMHO.
> >
> > There's also another factor here, which I thought I'd mentioned
> > already, but looks like I didn't: I think we're still missing some
> > details in what's going on.
> >
> > The premise for this patch is that plugging while the indicator is in
> > transition state is allowed to fail in any way on the guest side. I
> > don't think that's a reasonable interpretation, because it's
unworkable
> > for physical hotplug. If the indicator starts blinking while you're
in
> > the middle of shoving a card in, you'd be in trouble.
> >
> > So, what I'm assuming here is that while "don't plug while
blinking" is
> > the instruction for the operator to obey as best they can, on the guest
> > side the rule has to be "start blinking, wait a while and by the time
> > you leave blinking state again, you can be confident any plugs or
> > unplugs have completed". Obviously still racy in the strict
computer
> > science sense, but about the best you can do with slow humans in the
> > mix.
> >
> > So, qemu should of course endeavour to follow that rule as though it
> > was a human operator on a physical machine and not plug when the
> > indicator is blinking. *But* the qemu plug will in practice be fast
> > enough that if we're hitting real problems here, it suggests the guest
> > is still doing something wrong.
> >
> >
> > I personally think there is a little bit of over-engineering here.
> > Let's start with the spec:
> >
> >   Power Indicator Blinking
> >   A blinking Power Indicator indicates that the slot is powering up or
> > powering down and that
> >   insertion or removal of the adapter is not permitted.
> >
> > What exactly is an interpretation here?
> > As you stated, the races are theoretical, the whole point of the indicator
> > is to let the operator know he can't plug the device just yet.
> >
> > I understand it would be more user friendly if the QEMU would wait internally
> > for the
> > blinking to end, but the whole point of the indicator is to let the
operatorÂÂ
> > (human or machine)
> > know they can't plug the device at a specific time.
> > Should QEMU take the responsibility of the operator? Is it even correct?
> >
> > Even if we would want such a feature, how is it related to this patch?
> > The patch simply refuses to start a hotplug operation when it knows it will
not
> > succeed.ÂÂ
> > ÂÂ
> > Another way that would make sense to me would be is a new QEMU interface
other
> > than
> > "add_device", let's say "adding_device_allowed", that
would return true if the
> > hotplug is allowed
> > at this point of time. (I am aware of the theoretical races)ÂÂ
>
> Rather than adding_device_allowed, something like "query slot"
> might be helpful for debugging. That would help user figure out
> e.g. why isn't device visible without any races.
Would be new command useful tough? What we end up is broken guest
(if I read commit message right) and a user who has no idea if
device_add was successful or not.
So what user should do in this case
- wait till it explodes?
- can user remove it or it would be stuck there forever?
- poll slot before hotplug, manually?
(if this is the case then failing device_add cleanly doesn't sound bad,
it looks similar to another error we have "/* Check if hot-plug is disabled on the
slot */"
in pcie_cap_slot_pre_plug_cb)
CCing libvirt, as it concerns not only QEMU.
The only reason a separate command might make sense is if libvirt would
want to provide a specific error to the user/upper management layer that
the operation failed due to a transient failure (so that it can be
retried later).
We don't really want to go to a policy decision of how long to wait in
such case, so unless qemu waits libvirt will plainly want to report an
error.
That said IMO 'device_add' should still fail if it's certain that the
device won't be plugged in. This will fix any client which is currently
in use. Adding a separate command is worth only for pre-checking for
saner error handling.
> > The above will at least mimic the mechanics of the
pyhs world. The operator
> > looks at the indicator,
> > the management software checks if adding the device is allowed.
> > Since it is a corner case I would prefer the device_add to fail rather than
> > introducing a new interface,
> > but that's just me.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Marcel
> >
>
> I think we want QEMU management interface to be reasonably
> abstract and agnostic if possible. Pushing knowledge of hardware
> detail to management will just lead to pain IMHO.
> We supported device_add which practically never fails for years,
For CPUs and RAM, device_add can fail so maybe management is also
prepared to handle errors on PCI hotplug path.
While it was me who implemented device_add for cpu/memory I don't
remmeber any more whether we are really prepared for it.
We certainly want to do it if there's a possibility to do it.