From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=47605 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PDc5K-0001BJ-Cc for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 03 Nov 2010 08:04:59 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PDc5I-0001g9-Rp for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 03 Nov 2010 08:04:58 -0400 Received: from e8.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.138]:47288) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PDc5I-0001g3-Os for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 03 Nov 2010 08:04:56 -0400 Received: from d01relay05.pok.ibm.com (d01relay05.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.237]) by e8.ny.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id oA3BmJuS014042 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2010 07:48:19 -0400 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (d01av04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.64]) by d01relay05.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id oA3C4swI137476 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2010 08:04:54 -0400 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av04.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id oA3C4qBm021950 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2010 08:04:53 -0400 Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 07:04:43 -0500 From: Ryan Harper Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/3] v4 Decouple block device removal from device removal Message-ID: <20101103120443.GD3469@us.ibm.com> References: <20101102134622.GG22904@us.ibm.com> <20101102135827.GB31007@redhat.com> <20101102142201.GH22904@us.ibm.com> <20101102154615.GB32448@redhat.com> <20101102165339.GK22904@us.ibm.com> <20101102175922.GA1939@redhat.com> <20101102190108.GA3469@us.ibm.com> <20101102191749.GD2744@redhat.com> <20101102202338.GB3469@us.ibm.com> <20101103072134.GA6772@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101103072134.GA6772@redhat.com> List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: Kevin Wolf , yamahata@valinux.co.jp, Markus Armbruster , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Anthony Liguori , Ryan Harper , Stefan Hajnoczi * Michael S. Tsirkin [2010-11-03 02:22]: > On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 03:23:38PM -0500, Ryan Harper wrote: > > * Michael S. Tsirkin [2010-11-02 14:18]: > > > On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 02:01:08PM -0500, Ryan Harper wrote: > > > > > > > > I like the idea of disconnect; if part of the device_del method was to > > > > > > > > invoke a disconnect method, we could implement that for block, net, etc; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd think we'd want to send the notification, then disconnect. > > > > > > > > Struggling with whether it's worth having some reasonable timeout > > > > > > > > between notification and disconnect. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem with this is that it has no analog in real world. > > > > > > > In real world, you can send some notifications to the guest, and you can > > > > > > > remove the card. Tying them together is what created the problem in the > > > > > > > first place. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Timeouts can be implemented by management, maybe with a nice dialog > > > > > > > being shown to the user. > > > > > > > > > > > > Very true. I'm fine with forcing a disconnect during the removal path > > > > > > prior to notification. Do we want a new disconnect method at the device > > > > > > level (pci)? or just use the existing removal callback and call that > > > > > > during the initial hotremov event? > > > > > > > > > > Not sure what you mean by that, but I don't see a device doing anything > > > > > differently wrt surprise or ordered removal. So probably the existing > > > > > callback should do. I don't think we need to talk about disconnect: > > > > > since we decided we are emulating device removal, let's call it > > > > > just that. > > > > > > > > Because current the "removal" process depends on the guest actually > > > > responding. What I'm suggesting is that, in Marcus's term, and what > > > > drive_unplug() implements, is to disconnect the host block device from > > > > the guest device to prevent any further access to it in the case the > > > > guest doesn't respond to the removal request made via ACPI. > > > > > > > > Very specifically, what we're suggesting instead of the drive_unplug() > > > > command so to complete the device removal operation without waiting for > > > > the guest to respond; that's what's going to happen if we invoke the > > > > response callback; it will appear as if the guest responded whether it > > > > did or not. > > > > > > > > What I was suggesting above was to instead of calling the callback for > > > > handing the guest response was to add a device function called > > > > disconnect which would remove any association of host resources from > > > > guest resources before we notified the guest. Thinking about it again > > > > I'm not sure this is useful, but if we're going to remove the device > > > > without the guests knowledge, I'm not sure how useful sending the > > > > removal requests via ACPI is in the first place. > > > > > > > > My feeling is that I'd like to have explicit control over the disconnect > > > > from host resources separate from the device removal *if* we're going to > > > > retain the guest notification. If we don't care to notify the guest, > > > > then we can just do device removal without notifying the guest > > > > and be done with it. > > > > > > I imagine management would typically want to do this: > > > 1. notify guest > > > 2. wait a bit > > > 3. remove device > > > > Yes; but this argues for (1) being a separate command from (3) > > Yes. Long term I think we will want a way to do that. > > > unless we > > require (3) to include (1) and (2) in the qemu implementation. > > > > Currently we implement: > > > > 1. device_del (attempt to remove device) > > 2. notify guest > > 3. if guest responds, remove device > > 4. disconnect host resource from device on destruction > > > > With my drive_unplug patch we do: > > > > 1. disconnect host resource from device > > This is what drive_unplug does, right? Correct. > > > 2. device_del (attempt to remove device) > > 3. notify guest > > 4. if guest responds, remove device > > > > I think we're suggesting to instead do (if we keep disconnect as part of > > device_del) > > > > 1. device_del (attemp to remove device) > > 2. notify guest > > 3. invoke device destruction callback resulting in disconnect host resource from device > > 4. if guest responds, invoke device destruction path a second time. > > By response you mean eject? No, this is not what I was suggesting. > I was really suggesting that your patch is fine :) > Sorry about confusion. I don't mean eject; I mean responding to the ACPI event by writing a response to the PCI chipset which QEMU then in turn will invoke the qdev_unplug() path which ultimately kills the device and the Drive and BlockState objects. > > I was also saying that from what I hear, the pci express support > will at some point need interfaces to > - notify guest about device removal/addition > - get eject from guest > - remove device without talking to guest > - add device without talking to guest > - suppress device deletion on eject > > All this can be generic and can work through express > configuration mechanisms or through acpi for pci. > But this is completely separate from unplugging > the host backend, which should be possible at any point. Yes. I think we've worked out that we do want an independent unplug/disconnect mechanism rather than tying it to device_del. Marcus, it sounds like then you wanted to see a net_unplug/disconnect and that instead of having device_del always succeed and replacing it with a shell, we'd need to provide an explicit command to do the disconnect in a similar fashion to how we're doing drive_unplug? With at least two of these device types needing an explicit disconnect to sever the bond between host/guest makes me want a device-level interface for doing the disconnect that each device can implement differently. -- Ryan Harper Software Engineer; Linux Technology Center IBM Corp., Austin, Tx ryanh@us.ibm.com