On Wed, 22 Jul 2020, Anchal Agarwal wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 05:18:34PM -0700, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 Jul 2020, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> > > >>>>>> +static int xen_setup_pm_notifier(void)
> > > >>>>>> +{
> > > >>>>>> + if (!xen_hvm_domain())
> > > >>>>>> + return -ENODEV;
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> I forgot --- what did we decide about non-x86 (i.e. ARM)?
> > > >>>>> It would be great to support that however, its out of
> > > >>>>> scope for this patch set.
> > > >>>>> I’ll be happy to discuss it separately.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I wasn't implying that this *should* work on ARM but rather whether this
> > > >>>> will break ARM somehow (because xen_hvm_domain() is true there).
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> Ok makes sense. TBH, I haven't tested this part of code on ARM and the series
> > > >>> was only support x86 guests hibernation.
> > > >>> Moreover, this notifier is there to distinguish between 2 PM
> > > >>> events PM SUSPEND and PM hibernation. Now since we only care about PM
> > > >>> HIBERNATION I may just remove this code and rely on "SHUTDOWN_SUSPEND" state.
> > > >>> However, I may have to fix other patches in the series where this check may
> > > >>> appear and cater it only for x86 right?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> I don't know what would happen if ARM guest tries to handle hibernation
> > > >> callbacks. The only ones that you are introducing are in block and net
> > > >> fronts and that's arch-independent.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> You do add a bunch of x86-specific code though (syscore ops), would
> > > >> something similar be needed for ARM?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > > I don't expect this to work out of the box on ARM. To start with something
> > > > similar will be needed for ARM too.
> > > > We may still want to keep the driver code as-is.
> > > >
> > > > I understand the concern here wrt ARM, however, currently the support is only
> > > > proposed for x86 guests here and similar work could be carried out for ARM.
> > > > Also, if regular hibernation works correctly on arm, then all is needed is to
> > > > fix Xen side of things.
> > > >
> > > > I am not sure what could be done to achieve any assurances on arm side as far as
> > > > this series is concerned.
> >
> > Just to clarify: new features don't need to work on ARM or cause any
> > addition efforts to you to make them work on ARM. The patch series only
> > needs not to break existing code paths (on ARM and any other platforms).
> > It should also not make it overly difficult to implement the ARM side of
> > things (if there is one) at some point in the future.
> >
> > FYI drivers/xen/manage.c is compiled and working on ARM today, however
> > Xen suspend/resume is not supported. I don't know for sure if
> > guest-initiated hibernation works because I have not tested it.
> >
> >
> >
> > > If you are not sure what the effects are (or sure that it won't work) on
> > > ARM then I'd add IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86) check, i.e.
> > >
> > >
> > > if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86) || !xen_hvm_domain())
> > > return -ENODEV;
> >
> > That is a good principle to have and thanks for suggesting it. However,
> > in this specific case there is nothing in this patch that doesn't work
> > on ARM. From an ARM perspective I think we should enable it and
> > &xen_pm_notifier_block should be registered.
> >
> This question is for Boris, I think you we decided to get rid of the notifier
> in V3 as all we need to check is SHUTDOWN_SUSPEND state which sounds plausible
> to me. So this check may go away. It may still be needed for sycore_ops
> callbacks registration.
> > Given that all guests are HVM guests on ARM, it should work fine as is.
> >
> >
> > I gave a quick look at the rest of the series and everything looks fine
> > to me from an ARM perspective. I cannot imaging that the new freeze,
> > thaw, and restore callbacks for net and block are going to cause any
> > trouble on ARM. The two main x86-specific functions are
> > xen_syscore_suspend/resume and they look trivial to implement on ARM (in
> > the sense that they are likely going to look exactly the same.)
> >
> Yes but for now since things are not tested I will put this
> !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86) on syscore_ops calls registration part just to be safe
> and not break anything.
> >
> > One question for Anchal: what's going to happen if you trigger a
> > hibernation, you have the new callbacks, but you are missing
> > xen_syscore_suspend/resume?
> >
> > Is it any worse than not having the new freeze, thaw and restore
> > callbacks at all and try to do a hibernation?
> If callbacks are not there, I don't expect hibernation to work correctly.
> These callbacks takes care of xen primitives like shared_info_page,
> grant table, sched clock, runstate time which are important to save the correct
> state of the guest and bring it back up. Other patches in the series, adds all
> the logic to these syscore callbacks. Freeze/thaw/restore are just there for at driver
> level.
I meant the other way around :-) Let me rephrase the question.
Do you think that implementing freeze/thaw/restore at the driver level
without having xen_syscore_suspend/resume can potentially make things
worse compared to not having freeze/thaw/restore at the driver level at
all?
