Re: [RFC/PATCH] virtio-console: wait for console ports

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Christian,

On (Wed) 21 Sep 2011 [17:52:23], Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> Amit,
> 
> can you have a look at the patch below and give feedback or apply
> if appropriate?

The patch looks good.  Just a couple of comments:

> On s390 I have seen some random "Warning: unable to open an initial
> console" boot failure. Turns out that tty_open fails, because the
> hvc_alloc was not yet done. In former times this could not happen,
> since the probe function automatically called hvc_alloc. With newer
> versions (multiport) some host<->guest interaction is required
> before hvc_alloc is called. This might be too late, especially if
> an initramfs is involved. Lets use a completion if we have
> multiport and an early console.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> ---
>  drivers/char/virtio_console.c |   18 ++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
> 
> Index: b/drivers/char/virtio_console.c
> ===================================================================
> --- a/drivers/char/virtio_console.c
> +++ b/drivers/char/virtio_console.c
> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
>   */
>  #include <linux/cdev.h>
>  #include <linux/debugfs.h>
> +#include <linux/completion.h>
>  #include <linux/device.h>
>  #include <linux/err.h>
>  #include <linux/fs.h>
> @@ -73,6 +74,7 @@ struct ports_driver_data {
>  static struct ports_driver_data pdrvdata;
>  
>  DEFINE_SPINLOCK(pdrvdata_lock);
> +DECLARE_COMPLETION(port_added);
>  
>  /* This struct holds information that's relevant only for console ports */
>  struct console {
> @@ -1352,6 +1354,7 @@ static void handle_control_message(struc
>  			break;
>  
>  		init_port_console(port);
> +		complete(&port_added);
>  		/*
>  		 * Could remove the port here in case init fails - but
>  		 * have to notify the host first.
> @@ -1648,6 +1651,10 @@ static int __devinit virtcons_probe(stru
>  	struct ports_device *portdev;
>  	int err;
>  	bool multiport;
> +	bool early = early_put_chars != 0;

Check for NULL instead of 0.  Is it necessary to create this variable
instead of checking for early_put_chars != NULL below?

> +
> +	/* Ensure to read early_put_chars now */
> +	barrier();
>  
>  	portdev = kmalloc(sizeof(*portdev), GFP_KERNEL);
>  	if (!portdev) {
> @@ -1719,6 +1726,17 @@ static int __devinit virtcons_probe(stru
>  
>  	__send_control_msg(portdev, VIRTIO_CONSOLE_BAD_ID,
>  			   VIRTIO_CONSOLE_DEVICE_READY, 1);
> +
> +	/* If there was an early virtio console, assume that there are no
> +	 * other consoles. We need to wait until the hvc_alloc matches the
> +	 * hvc_instantiate, otherwise tty_open will complain, resulting in
> +	 * a "Warning: unable to open an initial console" boot failure.
> +	 * Without multiport this is done in add_port above. With multiport
> +	 * this might take some host<->guest communication - thus we have to
> +	 * wait. */

This file uses comments in the form
  /*
   * ...
   */

> +	if (multiport && early)
> +		wait_for_completion(&port_added);
> +

Can there be a problem to not timeout this wait?  Maybe it's not a
real problem; just thinking out aloud.

		Amit
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux