Re: Query: Is it possible to lose interrupts between vhost and virtio_net during migration?

[Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>]

On 08/14/2014 06:02 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 04:52:40PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> On 08/07/2014 08:47 PM, Zhangjie (HZ) wrote:
>>> On 2014/8/5 20:14, Zhangjie (HZ) wrote:
>>>> On 2014/8/5 17:49, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Aug 05, 2014 at 02:29:28PM +0800, Zhangjie (HZ) wrote:
>>>>>> Jason is right, the new order is not the cause of network unreachable.
>>>>>> Changing order seems not work. After about 40 times, the problem occurs again.
>>>>>> Maybe there is other hidden reasons for that.
>>>> I modified the code to change the order myself yesterday.
>>>> This result is about my code.
>>>>> To make sure, you tested the patch that I posted to list:
>>>>> "vhost_net: stop guest notifiers after backend"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Please confirm.
>>>>>
>>>> OK, I will test with your patch "vhost_net: stop guest notifiers after backend".
>>>>
>>> Unfortunately, after using the patch "vhost_net: stop guest notifiers after backend",
>>> Linux VMs stopt themselves a few minutes after they were started.
>>>> @@ -308,6 +308,12 @@ int vhost_net_start(VirtIODevice *dev, NetClientState *ncs,
>>>>         goto err;
>>>>     }
>>>>
>>>> +    r = k->set_guest_notifiers(qbus->parent, total_queues * 2, true);
>>>> +    if (r < 0) {
>>>> +        error_report("Error binding guest notifier: %d", -r);
>>>> +        goto err;
>>>> +    }
>>>> +
>>>>     for (i = 0; i < total_queues; i++) {
>>>>         r = vhost_net_start_one(get_vhost_net(ncs[i].peer), dev, i * 2);
>>>>
>>>> @@ -316,12 +322,6 @@ int vhost_net_start(VirtIODevice *dev, NetClientState *ncs,
>>>>         }
>>>>     }
>>>>
>>>> -    r = k->set_guest_notifiers(qbus->parent, total_queues * 2, true);
>>>> -    if (r < 0) {
>>>> -        error_report("Error binding guest notifier: %d", -r);
>>>> -        goto err;
>>>> -    }
>>>> -
>>>>     return 0;
>>> I wonder if k->set_guest_notifiers should be called after "hdev->started = true;" in vhost_dev_start.
>> Michael, can we just remove those assertions? Since you may want to set
>> guest notifiers before starting the backend.
> Which assertions?

I mean assert(hdev->started) in vhost.c. Your patch may hit them.

>> Another question for virtio_pci_vector_poll(): why not using
>> msix_notify() instead of msix_set_pending().
> We can do that but the effect will be same since we know
> vector is masked.

Perhaps not in during current vhost starting. We start backend before
setting guest notifiers now. So backend are using masked notifier in
this time but the vector was not masked.

>
>> If so, there's no need to
>> change the vhost_net_start() ?
> Confused, don't see the connection.

If we use msix_notify(), it will raise the irq if backend want it before
setting guest notifiers. So no need to check the order of setting guest
notifiers and starting backend in vhost_net_start().
>
>> Zhang Jie, is this a regression? If yes, could you please do a bisection
>> to find the first bad commit.
>>
>> Thanks
> Pretty sure it's the mq patch: a9f98bb5ebe6fb1869321dcc58e72041ae626ad8
>
>     Since we may have many vhost/net devices for a virtio-net device.  The setting of
>     guest notifiers were moved out of the starting/stopping of a specific vhost
>     thread. The vhost_net_{start|stop}() were renamed to
>     vhost_net_{start|stop}_one(), and a new vhost_net_{start|stop}() were introduced
>     to configure the guest notifiers and start/stop all vhost/vhost_net devices.
>

Ok.