Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] QEMU-AER: Qemu changes to support AER for VFIO-PCI devices

Gleb Natapov
2013-02-05T12:31:01Z

On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 12:05:11PM +0000, Pandarathil, Vijaymohan R wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-pci-
> > owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Gleb Natapov
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 3:37 AM
> > To: Pandarathil, Vijaymohan R
> > Cc: Blue Swirl; Alex Williamson; Bjorn Helgaas; Ortiz, Lance E;
> > kvm@vger.kernel.org; qemu-devel@nongnu.org; linux-pci@vger.kernel.org;
> > linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] QEMU-AER: Qemu changes to support AER for VFIO-
> > PCI devices
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 10:59:41AM +0000, Pandarathil, Vijaymohan R wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Gleb Natapov [mailto:gleb@redhat.com]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 1:21 AM
> > > > To: Pandarathil, Vijaymohan R
> > > > Cc: Blue Swirl; Alex Williamson; Bjorn Helgaas; Ortiz, Lance E;
> > > > kvm@vger.kernel.org; qemu-devel@nongnu.org; linux-pci@vger.kernel.org;
> > > > linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] QEMU-AER: Qemu changes to support AER for
> > VFIO-
> > > > PCI devices
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 09:05:19AM +0000, Pandarathil, Vijaymohan R
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Gleb Natapov [mailto:gleb@redhat.com]
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 12:05 AM
> > > > > > To: Blue Swirl
> > > > > > Cc: Pandarathil, Vijaymohan R; Alex Williamson; Bjorn Helgaas;
> > Ortiz,
> > > > Lance
> > > > > > E; kvm@vger.kernel.org; qemu-devel@nongnu.org; linux-
> > > > pci@vger.kernel.org;
> > > > > > linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] QEMU-AER: Qemu changes to support AER
> > for
> > > > VFIO-
> > > > > > PCI devices
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 04:36:11PM +0000, Blue Swirl wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Pandarathil, Vijaymohan R
> > > > > > > <vijaymohan.pandarathil@hp.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > - Create eventfd per vfio device assigned to a guest
> > and
> > > > > > register an
> > > > > > > > event handler
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > - This fd is passed to the vfio_pci driver through the
> > > > SET_IRQ
> > > > > > ioctl
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > - When the device encounters an error, the eventfd is
> > > > signalled
> > > > > > > > and the qemu eventfd handler gets invoked.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > - In the handler decide what action to take. Current
> > action
> > > > > > taken
> > > > > > > > is to terminate the guest.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Usually this is not OK, but I guess this is not guest
> > triggerable.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Still not OK. Why not stop a guest with appropriate stop reason?
> > > > >
> > > > > The thinking was that since this is a hardware error, we would want
> > to
> > > > stop the guest at the earliest. The hw_error() routine which aborts the
> > > > qemu process was suggested by Alex and that seemed appropriate. Earlier
> > I
> > > > was using qemu_system_shutdown_request(). Any suggestions ?
> > > > >
> > > > I am thinking vm_stop(). Stopping SMP guest (and UP too in fact)
> > > > involves sending IPIs to other cpus running guest's vcpus. Both exit()
> > > > and vm_stop() will do it, but former is implicitly in the kernel and
> > > > later is explicitly in QEMU.
> > >
> > > I had used vm_stop(RUN_STATE_SHUTDOWN) earlier in my code. But while
> > testing, guest ended up in a hang rather than exiting. There seems to some
> > cleanup work which is being done as part of vm_stop. In our case, we wanted
> > the guest to exit immediately. So use of hw_error() seemed appropriate.
> > >
> > What makes you think it hang? It stopped, precisely what it should do if
> > you call vm_stop(). Now it is possible for vm user to investigate what
> > happened and even salvage some data from guest memory.
>
> That was ignorance on my part on the expected behavior of vm_stop().
> So what you are suggesting is to stop the guest displaying an appropriate
> error/next-steps message and have the users do any data-collection/investigation
> and then manually kill the guest, if they so desire. Right ?
>
Yes.

--
Gleb.