On 06/29/2017 03:44 PM, Alex Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 14:50:15 -0400 > Laine Stump <laine@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 06/28/2017 08:24 PM, Michael Roth wrote: >>> Hi everyone. Hoping to get some feedback on this approach, or some >>> alternatives proposed below, to the following issue: >>> >>> Currently libvirt immediately attempts to rebind a managed device back to the >>> host driver when it receives a DEVICE_DELETED event from QEMU. This is >>> problematic for 2 reasons: >>> >>> 1) If multiple devices from a group are attached to a guest, this can move >>> the group into a "non-viable" state where some devices are assigned to >>> the host and some to the guest. >> >> Since we don't support hotplug with managed='yes' of individual (or >> multiple) functions of a multifunction host device, I don't know that >> it's very useful to support hot *un*plug of it - it would only be useful >> if the multi-function device were present in the guest when it was >> started, and then was hot-unplugged later. And this is all a lot of >> extra complexity, though, so it would be useful to know what are the >> scenarios where it would actually be used (i.e. is this a legitimate >> need, or just an interesting exercise?) > > This doesn't make sense to me, since when do we not support hotplug > with managed='yes' and how is it prevented? Wait a minute. I wasn't thinking straight, got sidetracked into a different problem, and completely screwed up what I was trying to say. So basically forget everything in that paragraph :-/ What I started out to say was simply that we didn't support managed='yes' hotplugging of a single device that's in an iommu group containing multiple devices (and that led me to wander into the topic of multifunction devices, which as you say is really unrelated). We don't do anything specifically to prevent it, but as you say, it will fail when it gets to qemu. At one time someone talked about having libvirt automatically detach the other devices in the same group at times like this, but that was rightfully detected as ridiculous (it may have been me talking to myself, and I realized the stupidity of the idea before I managed to repeat it to anyone else). > Also, let's just not talk > about multifunction, a multifunction device does not imply a shared > group, nor does a shared group imply multifunction. Yeah, that was me being distracted while thinking about the situation and mistakenly conflating two different problems. > So is it hotplug > of a device which is in a shared group that is not supported, and if so > how? "not supported" != "actively prevented", it just means "there's no way to successfully do that" > I think libvirt tries to do the hot-add, but it hits the > non-viable group when it gives it to QEMU. Correct. > On hot-remove, I'm pretty > sure libvirt just lets the host crash into the ground by re-binding the > device to the host driver. I haven't tried, but you're likely right. > If we don't want to support it, that's one > thing, but the current model is more just neglectful than unsupported. Semantics. Potato, Potahto. The end result is "it doesn't work". If we're going to try to fix one, we should try to fix the other too. > > >>> 2) When QEMU emits the DEVICE_DELETED event, there's still a "finalize" phase >>> where additional cleanup occurs. In most cases libvirt can ignore this >>> cleanup, but in the case of VFIO devices this is where closing of a VFIO >>> group FD occurs, and failing to wait before rebinding the device to the >>> host driver can result in unexpected behavior. In the case of powernv >>> hosts at least, this can lead to a host driver crashing due to the default >>> DMA windows not having been fully-restored yet. The window between this is >>> and the initial DEVICE_DELETED seems to be ~6 seconds in practice. We've >>> seen host dumps with Mellanox CX4 VFs being rebound to host driver during >>> this period (on powernv hosts). >> >> I agree with Dan that the situation described here should be considered >> a qemu bug - according to my understanding (from back at the time >> DEVICE_DELETED was added to qemu (I think at libvirt's request) qemu >> should never emit the DEVICE_DELETED event until *everything* related to >> the device is finished - that was the whole point of adding the event in >> the first palce. Covering up this bug with a bunch of extra libvirt >> complexity is just creating the potential for even more bugs in the more >> complex code. > > Agree, but ISTR not everyone thinks that way. I don't remember the > opposing viewpoint though. Possible. I only retain about 1% of what goes by the screen, and even most of that is gone within 6 months. I thought I recalled that there was no DEVICE_DELETED event before libvirt requested it, so it would make sense for it to behave according to what libvirt needs (assuming nobody else is using it). That may be a narcissistic and incorrect view though. -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
