Re: [PATCH v10 Kernel 1/5] vfio: KABI for migration interface for device state

Alex Williamson
2020-01-07T17:09:34Z

On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 12:58:22 +0530
Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@nvidia.com> wrote:

> On 1/7/2020 4:48 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 18:25:37 +0000
> > "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >> * Alex Williamson (alex.williamson@redhat.com) wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 01:40:35 +0530
> >>> Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@nvidia.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 12/19/2019 10:57 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> <Snip>
> >>>>
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> If device state it at pre-copy state (011b).
> >>>> Transition, i.e., write to device state as stop-and-copy state (010b)
> >>>> failed, then by previous state I meant device should return pre-copy
> >>>> state(011b), i.e. previous state which was successfully set, or as you
> >>>> said current state which was successfully set.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, the point I'm trying to make is that this version of the spec
> >>> tries to tell the user what they should do upon error according to our
> >>> current interpretation of the QEMU migration protocol. We're not
> >>> defining the QEMU migration protocol, we're defining something that can
> >>> be used in a way to support that protocol. So I think we should be
> >>> concerned with defining our spec, for example my proposal would be: "If
> >>> a state transition fails the user can read device_state to determine the
> >>> current state of the device. This should be the previous state of the
> >>> device unless the vendor driver has encountered an internal error, in
> >>> which case the device may report the invalid device_state 110b. The
> >>> user must use the device reset ioctl in order to recover the device
> >>> from this state. If the device is indicated in a valid device state
> >>> via reading device_state, the user may attempt to transition the device
> >>> to any valid state reachable from the current state."
> >>
> >> We might want to be able to distinguish between:
> >> a) The device has failed and needs a reset
> >> b) The migration has failed
> >
> > I think the above provides this. For Kirti's example above of
> > transitioning from pre-copy to stop-and-copy, the device could refuse
> > to transition to stop-and-copy, generating an error on the write() of
> > device_state. The user re-reading device_state would allow them to
> > determine the current device state, still in pre-copy or failed. Only
> > the latter would require a device reset.
> >
> >> If some part of the devices mechanics for migration fail, but the device
> >> is otherwise operational then we should be able to decide to fail the
> >> migration without taking the device down, which might be very bad for
> >> the VM.
> >> Losing a VM during migration due to a problem with migration really
> >> annoys users; it's one thing the migration failing, but taking the VM
> >> out as well really gets to them.
> >>
> >> Having the device automatically transition back to the 'running' state
> >> seems a bad idea to me; much better to tell the hypervisor and provide
> >> it with a way to clean up; for example, imagine a system with multiple
> >> devices that are being migrated, most of them have happily transitioned
> >> to stop-and-copy, but then the last device decides to fail - so now
> >> someone is going to have to take all of them back to running.
> >
> > Right, unless I'm missing one, it seems invalid->running is the only
> > self transition the device should make, though still by way of user
> > interaction via the reset ioctl. Thanks,
> >
>
> Instead of using invalid state by vendor driver on device failure, I
> think better to reserve one bit in device state which vendor driver can
> set on device failure. When error bit is set, other bits in device state
> should be ignored.

Why is a separate bit better? Saving and Restoring states are mutually
exclusive, so we have an unused and invalid device state already
without burning another bit. Thanks,

Alex