Thanks for this work, please see below. On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 06:04:24PM +0000, Anchal Agarwal wrote: > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 10:16:11AM +0100, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 11:05:53PM +0000, Anchal Agarwal wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 11:05:09AM +0100, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 11:25:34PM +0000, Anchal Agarwal wrote: > > > > > From: Munehisa Kamata <kamatam@xxxxxxxxxx > > > > > > > > > > Add freeze, thaw and restore callbacks for PM suspend and hibernation > > > > > support. All frontend drivers that needs to use PM_HIBERNATION/PM_SUSPEND > > > > > events, need to implement these xenbus_driver callbacks. > > > > > The freeze handler stops a block-layer queue and disconnect the > > > > > frontend from the backend while freeing ring_info and associated resources. > > > > > The restore handler re-allocates ring_info and re-connect to the > > > > > backend, so the rest of the kernel can continue to use the block device > > > > > transparently. Also, the handlers are used for both PM suspend and > > > > > hibernation so that we can keep the existing suspend/resume callbacks for > > > > > Xen suspend without modification. Before disconnecting from backend, > > > > > we need to prevent any new IO from being queued and wait for existing > > > > > IO to complete. > > > > > > > > This is different from Xen (xenstore) initiated suspension, as in that > > > > case Linux doesn't flush the rings or disconnects from the backend. > > > Yes, AFAIK in xen initiated suspension backend takes care of it. > > > > No, in Xen initiated suspension backend doesn't take care of flushing > > the rings, the frontend has a shadow copy of the ring contents and it > > re-issues the requests on resume. > > > Yes, I meant suspension in general where both xenstore and backend knows > system is going under suspension and not flushing of rings. backend has no idea the guest is going to be suspended. Backend code is completely agnostic to suspension/resume. > That happens > in frontend when backend indicates that state is closing and so on. > I may have written it in wrong context. I'm afraid I'm not sure I fully understand this last sentence. > > > > > +static int blkfront_freeze(struct xenbus_device *dev) > > > > > +{ > > > > > + unsigned int i; > > > > > + struct blkfront_info *info = dev_get_drvdata(&dev->dev); > > > > > + struct blkfront_ring_info *rinfo; > > > > > + /* This would be reasonable timeout as used in xenbus_dev_shutdown() */ > > > > > + unsigned int timeout = 5 * HZ; > > > > > + int err = 0; > > > > > + > > > > > + info->connected = BLKIF_STATE_FREEZING; > > > > > + > > > > > + blk_mq_freeze_queue(info->rq); > > > > > + blk_mq_quiesce_queue(info->rq); > > > > > + > > > > > + for (i = 0; i < info->nr_rings; i++) { > > > > > + rinfo = &info->rinfo[i]; > > > > > + > > > > > + gnttab_cancel_free_callback(&rinfo->callback); > > > > > + flush_work(&rinfo->work); > > > > > + } > > > > > + > > > > > + /* Kick the backend to disconnect */ > > > > > + xenbus_switch_state(dev, XenbusStateClosing); > > > > > > > > Are you sure this is safe? > > > > > > > In my testing running multiple fio jobs, other test scenarios running > > > a memory loader works fine. I did not came across a scenario that would > > > have failed resume due to blkfront issues unless you can sugest some? > > > > AFAICT you don't wait for the in-flight requests to be finished, and > > just rely on blkback to finish processing those. I'm not sure all > > blkback implementations out there can guarantee that. > > > > The approach used by Xen initiated suspension is to re-issue the > > in-flight requests when resuming. I have to admit I don't think this > > is the best approach, but I would like to keep both the Xen and the PM > > initiated suspension using the same logic, and hence I would request > > that you try to re-use the existing resume logic (blkfront_resume). > > > > > > I don't think you wait for all requests pending on the ring to be > > > > finished by the backend, and hence you might loose requests as the > > > > ones on the ring would not be re-issued by blkfront_restore AFAICT. > > > > > > > AFAIU, blk_mq_freeze_queue/blk_mq_quiesce_queue should take care of no used > > > request on the shared ring. Also, we I want to pause the queue and flush all > > > the pending requests in the shared ring before disconnecting from backend. > > > > Oh, so blk_mq_freeze_queue does wait for in-flight requests to be > > finished. I guess it's fine then. > > > Ok. > > > Quiescing the queue seemed a better option here as we want to make sure ongoing > > > requests dispatches are totally drained. > > > I should accept that some of these notion is borrowed from how nvme freeze/unfreeze > > > is done although its not apple to apple comparison. > > > > That's fine, but I would still like to requests that you use the same > > logic (as much as possible) for both the Xen and the PM initiated > > suspension. > > > > So you either apply this freeze/unfreeze to the Xen suspension (and > > drop the re-issuing of requests on resume) or adapt the same approach > > as the Xen initiated suspension. Keeping two completely different > > approaches to suspension / resume on blkfront is not suitable long > > term. > > > I agree with you on overhaul of xen suspend/resume wrt blkfront is a good > idea however, IMO that is a work for future and this patch series should > not be blocked for it. What do you think? It's not so much that I think an overhaul of suspend/resume in blkfront is needed, it's just that I don't want to have two completely different suspend/resume paths inside blkfront. So from my PoV I think the right solution is to either use the same code (as much as possible) as it's currently used by Xen initiated suspend/resume, or to also switch Xen initiated suspension to use the newly introduced code. Having two different approaches to suspend/resume in the same driver is a recipe for disaster IMO: it adds complexity by forcing developers to take into account two different suspend/resume approaches when there's no need for it. Thanks, Roger.