Re: [virtio-comment] [PATCH RFC] virtio: introduce VIRTIO_F_DEVICE_STOP

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 03:05:43PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> 
> On 2020/12/27 下午7:12, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 02:45:28PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > I tend to say, that from a perspective of the driver, all requests that
> > > > are available, and not yet used, are in-flight. So we have to be very
> > > > careful when wording this requirement, to avoid misunderstandings. I
> > > > don't think the first RFC is good enough. I will think some more about
> > > > this.
> > > 
> > > Yes, I agree. The problem is that the spec doesn't describe how device work,
> > > so if we want to be more accurate, it might require some work not only for
> > > stop but also for e.g reset (something like in flight has been used by the
> > > spec in that case).
> > You probably mean the DEVICE_NEEDS_RESET description, right?
> > 
> > 	For example, the driver can't assume requests in flight will be
> > 	completed if DEVICE_NEEDS_RESET is set, nor can it assume that
> > 	they have not been completed.  A good implementation will try to
> > 	recover by issuing a reset.
> > 
> > yes, DEVICE_NEEDS_RESET is unfortunately underspecified which likely
> > is related to the fact it is not widely implemented.
> 
> 
> For both NEEDS_RESET and device reset.
> 
> For NEEDS_RESET, we use "in flight" and "completed" without an actual
> definition.
> 
> For device reset, we don't even define what is the device expected (e.g how
> are "in flight" requests expected to be processed) to behave.
> 
> Thanks

Because device is expected to just stop:

	None of the virtqueues
	of a device are live once the device has been reset.

and it's driver's job to recover buffers:

	Thus a driver MUST ensure a virtqueue isn't live (by device reset) before removing exposed buffers.

what happened to buffers which were not used?

I think it's a quality of implementation/device specific issue, e.g. for net:
for transmit, if device sends a packet without using the buffer,
then driver will resend the packet leading to duplicates.
for receive, it's a packet drop, slightly less of a problem.


my question is whether such behaviour is sufficient for migration?
if not can we really describe it generally? it's possible we need to
describe it per device type.

-- 
MST


This publicly archived list offers a means to provide input to the
OASIS Virtual I/O Device (VIRTIO) TC.

In order to verify user consent to the Feedback License terms and
to minimize spam in the list archive, subscription is required
before posting.

Subscribe: virtio-comment-subscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
Unsubscribe: virtio-comment-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
List help: virtio-comment-help@lists.oasis-open.org
List archive: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/virtio-comment/
Feedback License: https://www.oasis-open.org/who/ipr/feedback_license.pdf
List Guidelines: https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/mailing-lists
Committee: https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/virtio/
Join OASIS: https://www.oasis-open.org/join/