From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, anisinha@redhat.com, jusual@redhat.com,
kraxel@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] acpi: pcihp: make pending delete blocking action expire
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2023 06:02:29 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230405055946-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230405113856.72065fd0@imammedo.users.ipa.redhat.com>
On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 11:38:56AM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 04:47:48 -0400
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 10:34:44AM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > > with Q35 using ACPI PCI hotplug by default, user's request to unplug
> > > device is ignored when it's issued before guest OS has been booted.
> > > And any additional attempt to request device hot-unplug afterwards
> > > results in following error:
> > >
> > > "Device XYZ is already in the process of unplug"
> > >
> > > arguably it can be considered as a regression introduced by [2],
> > > before which it was possible to issue unplug request multiple
> > > times.
> > >
> > > Allowing pending delete blocking expire brings ACPI PCI hotplug
> > > on par with native PCIe unplug behavior [1] and allows user
> > > to repeat unplug requests at propper times.
> > > Set expire timeout to arbitrary 1msec so user won't be able to
> > > flood guest with SCI interrupts by calling device_del in tight loop.
> > >
> > > PS:
> > > ACPI spec doesn't mandate what OSPM can do with GPEx.status
> > > bits set before it's booted => it's impl. depended.
> > > Status bits may be retained (I tested with one Windows version)
> > > or cleared (Linux since 2.6 kernel times) during guest's ACPI
> > > subsystem initialization.
> > > Clearing status bits (though not wrong per se) hides the unplug
> > > event from guest, and it's upto user to repeat device_del later
> > > when guest is able to handle unplug requests.
> > >
> > > 1) 18416c62e3 ("pcie: expire pending delete")
> > > 2)
> > > Fixes: cce8944cc9ef ("qdev-monitor: Forbid repeated device_del")
> > > Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
> >
> > I feel a real solution is to detect guest handling the
> > event such as clearing GPE and allowing resending
> > the interrupt then.
>
> I did consider preserving(masking clearing attempt) of GPE0.sts[]
> IF en[] hasn't been enabled ever (i.e. should help with unplug at
> the 1st boot). But that won't work across reboots (depends on
> reboot kind) and it's twisting rules wrt spec (platform(QEMU/fw)
> may set status bits, but it's upto OSPM to decide what to do with
> them (when and how clear or ignore them).
>
> > A similar strategy should be possible with the attention
> > button.
> >
>
> > This patch is more of a band-aid - it is possible that guest
> > rebooted and so user knows a new device_del is required,
> > and we arbitrarily reject that. Right?
> You lost me here. Can you elaborate?
I request device deletion but guest was rebooting losing state.
I want to request deletion again but the request will fail
until 1ms passes. 1ms is not a lot but I really don't want
management to learn weird tricks like waiting for 1ms.
> >
> > This is arguably a regression but not in this release yes?
> > So I don't think it needs to block qemu release.
> >
> >
> > > ---
> > > v2:
> > > * change timeout to 1ms
> > > * add comment to expire usage
> > > * massage commit message to be a bit more clear
> > >
> > > CC: mst@redhat.com
> > > CC: anisinha@redhat.com
> > > CC: jusual@redhat.com
> > > CC: kraxel@redhat.com
> >
> > It's helpful to have CC before --- so backporters know whom to CC, too.
>
> ok, I'll fix it up and respin
>
> >
> > > ---
> > > hw/acpi/pcihp.c | 10 ++++++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/hw/acpi/pcihp.c b/hw/acpi/pcihp.c
> > > index dcfb779a7a..5daa732a33 100644
> > > --- a/hw/acpi/pcihp.c
> > > +++ b/hw/acpi/pcihp.c
> > > @@ -357,6 +357,16 @@ void acpi_pcihp_device_unplug_request_cb(HotplugHandler *hotplug_dev,
> > > * acpi_pcihp_eject_slot() when the operation is completed.
> > > */
> > > pdev->qdev.pending_deleted_event = true;
> > > + /* if unplug was requested before OSPM is initialized,
> > > + * linux kernel will clear GPE0.sts[] bits during boot, which effectively
> > > + * hides unplug event. BAnd than followup qmp_device_del() calls remain
> >
> > BAnd?
> >
> > > + * blocked by above flag permanently.
> > > + * Unblock qmp_device_del() by setting expire limit, so user can
> > > + * repeat unplug request later when OSPM has been booted.
> > > + */
> > > + pdev->qdev.pending_deleted_expires_ms =
> > > + qemu_clock_get_ms(QEMU_CLOCK_VIRTUAL); /* 1 msec */
> > > +
> > > s->acpi_pcihp_pci_status[bsel].down |= (1U << slot);
> > > acpi_send_event(DEVICE(hotplug_dev), ACPI_PCI_HOTPLUG_STATUS);
> > > }
> > > --
> > > 2.39.1
> >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-04-05 10:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-04-05 8:34 [PATCH v2] acpi: pcihp: make pending delete blocking action expire Igor Mammedov
2023-04-05 8:47 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2023-04-05 9:38 ` Igor Mammedov
2023-04-05 10:02 ` Michael S. Tsirkin [this message]
2023-04-05 12:23 ` Igor Mammedov
2023-04-05 9:45 ` Igor Mammedov
2023-04-06 6:21 ` Ani Sinha
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20230405055946-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org \
--to=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=anisinha@redhat.com \
--cc=imammedo@redhat.com \
--cc=jusual@redhat.com \
--cc=kraxel@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.