From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED97CC282DD for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 22:46:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B40E02053B for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 22:46:03 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="HWSGJDPo" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org B40E02053B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:50116 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ipK5S-0006xo-Fb for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Wed, 08 Jan 2020 17:46:02 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:47417) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ipK4C-0005wR-C0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 08 Jan 2020 17:44:46 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ipK48-0006Sk-MN for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 08 Jan 2020 17:44:42 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-2.mimecast.com ([205.139.110.61]:52398 helo=us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ipK46-0006OL-O7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 08 Jan 2020 17:44:39 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1578523476; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=2Ce7iZ/TvYsErucJW9xUbmo6R4UGv0zMfYGiP22GnZw=; b=HWSGJDPoP12JdLwhPZngsHGxn3+lhKc7H6zNKUs4SxS8csl4i4Aa7RU7aGmQNjHL8+VFFg HwbMC+YsYzBmhZDeIfTE3LbH4Q9lelFVjk4FJJw8wDVnunBzav8ieN62kdAQg1pRg+Z8ww L9x7HhXi/+jIkBwPnzWNUlzhBuynG+c= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-260-m9eHdCQpO628d-yNeO_pKw-1; Wed, 08 Jan 2020 17:44:33 -0500 X-MC-Unique: m9eHdCQpO628d-yNeO_pKw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 923821005502; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 22:44:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from w520.home (ovpn-118-62.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.118.62]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C87E19C58; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 22:44:28 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2020 15:44:28 -0700 From: Alex Williamson To: Kirti Wankhede Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 Kernel 1/5] vfio: KABI for migration interface for device state Message-ID: <20200108154428.02bb312d@w520.home> In-Reply-To: <46ac2d9e-4f4e-27d5-2a96-932c444e3461@nvidia.com> References: <1576527700-21805-1-git-send-email-kwankhede@nvidia.com> <1576527700-21805-2-git-send-email-kwankhede@nvidia.com> <20191216154406.023f912b@x1.home> <20191217114357.6496f748@x1.home> <3527321f-e310-8324-632c-339b22f15de5@nvidia.com> <20191219102706.0a316707@x1.home> <928e41b5-c3fd-ed75-abd6-ada05cda91c9@nvidia.com> <20191219140929.09fa24da@x1.home> <20200102182537.GK2927@work-vm> <20200106161851.07871e28@w520.home> <20200107100923.2f7b5597@w520.home> <08b7f953-6ac5-cd79-b1ff-54338da32d1e@nvidia.com> <20200107115602.25156c41@w520.home> <20200108155955.78e908c1.cohuck@redhat.com> <20200108113134.05c08470@w520.home> <46ac2d9e-4f4e-27d5-2a96-932c444e3461@nvidia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.23 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 205.139.110.61 X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Zhengxiao.zx@alibaba-inc.com, kevin.tian@intel.com, yi.l.liu@intel.com, cjia@nvidia.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, eskultet@redhat.com, ziye.yang@intel.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Cornelia Huck , shuangtai.tst@alibaba-inc.com, "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" , zhi.a.wang@intel.com, mlevitsk@redhat.com, pasic@linux.ibm.com, aik@ozlabs.ru, eauger@redhat.com, felipe@nutanix.com, jonathan.davies@nutanix.com, yan.y.zhao@intel.com, changpeng.liu@intel.com, Ken.Xue@amd.com Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 02:11:11 +0530 Kirti Wankhede wrote: > On 1/9/2020 12:01 AM, Alex Williamson wrote: > > On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 15:59:55 +0100 > > Cornelia Huck wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 11:56:02 -0700 > >> Alex Williamson wrote: > >> > >>> On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 23:23:17 +0530 > >>> Kirti Wankhede wrote: > >> > >>>> There are 3 invalid states: > >>>> * 101b => Invalid state > >>>> * 110b => Invalid state > >>>> * 111b => Invalid state > >>>> > >>>> why only 110b should be used to report error from vendor driver to > >>>> report error? Aren't we adding more confusions in the interface? > >>> > >>> I think the only chance of confusion is poor documentation. If we > >>> define all of the above as invalid and then say any invalid state > >>> indicates an error condition, then the burden is on the user to > >>> enumerate all the invalid states. That's not a good idea. Instead we > >>> could say 101b (_RESUMING|_RUNNING) is reserved, it's not currently > >>> used but it might be useful some day. Therefore there are no valid > >>> transitions into or out of this state. A vendor driver should fail a > >>> write(2) attempting to enter this state. > >>> > >>> That leaves 11Xb, where we consider _RESUMING and _SAVING as mutually > >>> exclusive, so neither are likely to ever be valid states. Logically, > >>> if the device is in a failed state such that it needs to be reset to be > >>> recovered, I would hope the device is not running, so !_RUNNING (110b) > >>> seems appropriate. I'm not sure we need that level of detail yet > >>> though, so I was actually just assuming both 11Xb states would indicate > >>> an error state and the undefined _RUNNING bit might differentiate > >>> something in the future. > >>> > >>> Therefore, I think we'd have: > >>> > >>> * 101b => Reserved > >>> * 11Xb => Error > >>> > >>> Where the device can only self transition into the Error state on a > >>> failed device_state transition and the only exit from the Error state > >>> is via the reset ioctl. The Reserved state is unreachable. The vendor > >>> driver must error on device_state writes to enter or exit the Error > >>> state and must error on writes to enter Reserved states. Is that still > >>> confusing? > >> > >> I think one thing we could do is start to tie the meaning more to the > >> actual state (bit combination) and less to the individual bits. I.e. > >> > >> - bit 0 indicates 'running', > >> - bit 1 indicates 'saving', > >> - bit 2 indicates 'resuming', > >> - bits 3-31 are reserved. [Aside: reserved-and-ignored or > >> reserved-and-must-be-zero?] > > > > This version specified them as: > > > > Bits 3 - 31 are reserved for future use. User should perform > > read-modify-write operation on this field. > > > > The intention is that the user should not make any assumptions about > > the state of the reserved bits, but should preserve them when changing > > known bits. Therefore I think it's ignored but preserved. If we > > specify them as zero, then I think we lose any chance to define them > > later. > > > >> [Note that I don't specify what happens when a bit is set or unset.] > >> > >> States are then defined as: > >> 000b => stopped state (not saving or resuming) > >> 001b => running state (not saving or resuming) > >> 010b => stop-and-copy state > >> 011b => pre-copy state > >> 100b => resuming state > >> > >> [Transitions between these states defined, as before.] > >> > >> 101b => reserved [for post-copy; no transitions defined] > >> 111b => reserved [state does not make sense; no transitions defined] > >> 110b => error state [state does not make sense per se, but it does not > >> indicate running; transitions into this state *are* possible] > >> > >> To a 'reserved' state, we can later assign a different meaning (we > >> could even re-use 111b for a different error state, if needed); while > >> the error state must always stay the error state. > >> > >> We should probably use some kind of feature indication to signify > >> whether a 'reserved' state actually has a meaning. Also, maybe we also > >> should designate the states > 111b as 'reserved'. > >> > >> Does that make sense? > > > > It seems you have an opinion to restrict this particular error state to > > 110b rather than 11Xb, reserving 111b for some future error condition. > > That's fine and I think we agree that using the state with _RUNNING set > > to zero is more logical as we expect the device to be non-operational > > in this state. > > > > I'm also thinking more of these as states, but at the same time we're > > not doing away with the bit definitions. I think the states are much > > easier to decode and use if we think about the function of each bit, > > which leads to the logical incongruity that the 11Xb states are > > impossible and therefore must be error states. > > > > I agree on bit definition is better. > > Ok. Should there be a defined value for error, which can be used by > vendor driver for error state? > > #define VFIO_DEVICE_STATE_ERROR \ > (VFIO_DEVICE_STATE_SAVING | VFIO_DEVICE_STATE_RESUMING) Seems like a good idea for consistency. Thanks, Alex