Re: [RFC v2 2/3] vfio-ccw: Prevent quiesce function going into an infinite loop

[Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>]

On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 16:30:44 -0400
Farhan Ali <alifm@linux.ibm.com> wrote:

> On 04/11/2019 12:24 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Mon,  8 Apr 2019 17:05:32 -0400
> > Farhan Ali <alifm@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >   
> >> The quiesce function calls cio_cancel_halt_clear() and if we
> >> get an -EBUSY we go into a loop where we:
> >> 	- wait for any interrupts
> >> 	- flush all I/O in the workqueue
> >> 	- retry cio_cancel_halt_clear
> >>
> >> During the period where we are waiting for interrupts or
> >> flushing all I/O, the channel subsystem could have completed
> >> a halt/clear action and turned off the corresponding activity
> >> control bits in the subchannel status word. This means the next
> >> time we call cio_cancel_halt_clear(), we will again start by
> >> calling cancel subchannel and so we can be stuck between calling
> >> cancel and halt forever.
> >>
> >> Rather than calling cio_cancel_halt_clear() immediately after
> >> waiting, let's try to disable the subchannel. If we succeed in
> >> disabling the subchannel then we know nothing else can happen
> >> with the device.
> >>
> >> Suggested-by: Eric Farman <farman@linux.ibm.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Farhan Ali <alifm@linux.ibm.com>
> >> ---
> >>   drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_drv.c | 27 ++++++++++++---------------
> >>   1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_drv.c b/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_drv.c
> >> index 5aca475..4405f2a 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_drv.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_drv.c
> >> @@ -43,26 +43,23 @@ int vfio_ccw_sch_quiesce(struct subchannel *sch)
> >>   	if (ret != -EBUSY)
> >>   		goto out_unlock;
> >>   
> >> +	iretry = 255;
> >>   	do {
> >> -		iretry = 255;
> >>   
> >>   		ret = cio_cancel_halt_clear(sch, &iretry);
> >> -		while (ret == -EBUSY) {
> >> -			/*
> >> -			 * Flush all I/O and wait for
> >> -			 * cancel/halt/clear completion.
> >> -			 */
> >> -			private->completion = &completion;
> >> -			spin_unlock_irq(sch->lock);
> >> -
> >> +		/*
> >> +		 * Flush all I/O and wait for
> >> +		 * cancel/halt/clear completion.
> >> +		 */
> >> +		private->completion = &completion;
> >> +		spin_unlock_irq(sch->lock);
> >> +
> >> +		if (ret == -EBUSY)  
> > 
> > I don't think you need to do the unlock/lock and change
> > private->completion if you don't actually wait, no?  
> 
> If we don't end up waiting, then changing private->completion would not 
> be needed. But we would still need to release the spinlock due to [1].
> 
> > 
> > Looking at the possible return codes:
> > * -ENODEV -> device is not operational anyway, in theory you should even
> >     not need to bother with disabling the subchannel
> > * -EIO -> we've run out of retries, and the subchannel still is not
> >    idle; I'm not sure if we could do anything here, as disable is
> >    unlikely to work, either  
> 
> We could break out of the loop early for these cases. My thinking was I 
> wanted to depend on the result of trying to disable, because ultimately 
> that's what we want.
> 
> I can add the cases to break out of the loop early.

The -ENODEV case does not really hurt, as it will get us out of the
loop anyway. But for the -EIO case, I think we'll get -EBUSY from the
disable and stay within the loop endlessly?

> 
> 
> > * -EBUSY -> we expect an interrupt (or a timeout), the loop looks fine
> >    for that
> > * 0 -> the one thing that might happen is that we get an unsolicited
> >    interrupt between the successful cancel_halt_clear and the disable;
> >    not even giving up the lock here might even be better here?  
> 
> I didn't think of this case, but if cancel_halt_clear succeeds with 0 
> then we should wait, no?

For 0 I don't expect a solicited interrupt (documentation for the
functions says that the subchannel is idle in that case); it's just the
unsolicited interrupt that might get into the way.

> 
> > 
> > I think this loop will probably work as it is after this patch, but
> > giving up the lock when not really needed makes me a bit queasy... what
> > do others think?
> >   
> >>   			wait_for_completion_timeout(&completion, 3*HZ);
> >>   
> >> -			private->completion = NULL;
> >> -			flush_workqueue(vfio_ccw_work_q);
> >> -			spin_lock_irq(sch->lock);
> >> -			ret = cio_cancel_halt_clear(sch, &iretry);
> >> -		};
> >> -
> >> +		private->completion = NULL;  
> 
> [1]  flush_workqueue can go to sleep so we would still need to release 
> spinlock and reacquire it again to try disabling the subchannel.

Grr, I thought we could skip the flush in the !-EBUSY case, but I think
we can't due to the possibility of an unsolicited interrupt... what
simply adding handling for -EIO (although I'm not sure what we can
sensibly do in that case) and leave the other cases as they are now?

> 
> >> +		flush_workqueue(vfio_ccw_work_q);
> >> +		spin_lock_irq(sch->lock);
> >>   		ret = cio_disable_subchannel(sch);
> >>   	} while (ret == -EBUSY);
> >>   out_unlock:  
> > 
> >   
>