On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 08:01:49PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> On (Tue) 15 Nov 2011 [16:23:00], Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 07:33:46PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> > > On (Tue) 15 Nov 2011 [14:51:27], Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 05:59:36PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> > > > > On (Sun) 02 Oct 2011 [11:33:26], Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 09:19:40PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> > > > > > > Remove all the vqs on hibernation and re-create them after restoring
> > > > > > > from a hibernated image. This keeps networking working across
> > > > > > > hibernation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Amit Shah <amit.shah@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > > > 1 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> > > > > > > index dcd4b01..8b9ed43 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> > > > > > > @@ -1131,6 +1131,30 @@ static void __devexit virtnet_remove(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> > > > > > > free_netdev(vi->dev);
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PM
> > > > > > > +static int virtnet_freeze(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > + struct virtnet_info *vi = vdev->priv;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm guessing we need to do something like netif_device_detach here,
> > > > > > otherwise guest might be in the process of using the vq for transmit at
> > > > > > this point.
> > > > >
> > > > > Done.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I think we also must make sure NAPI RX handler is not in progress.
> > > > >
> > > > > How to do that? napi_disable() / napi_enable() doesn't seem right
> > > > > (and it doesn't work, too). pci_disable_device() in the suspend
> > > > > routine may work?
> > > > >
> > > > > > We also might need to mask interrupts from the device
> > > > > > to prevent TX or RX from getting rescheduled?
> > > > >
> > > > > pci_disable_device() will help this too, right?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > No, why would it help?
> > >
> > > IRQs will be disabled after the call to pci_disable_device(),
> > > isn't that sufficient?
> > >
> >
> > They will?
> > * pci_disable_device - Disable PCI device after use
> > * @dev: PCI device to be disabled
> > *
> > * Signal to the system that the PCI device is not in use by the system
> > * anymore. This only involves disabling PCI bus-mastering, if active.
> > *
> > * Note we don't actually disable the device until all callers of
> > * pci_enable_device() have called pci_disable_device().
>
> You mean multiple devices could have called pci_enable_device()? Not
> likely to happen, at least in case of our virtio devices... only we
> claim ownership over them. I don't think that'll change.
>
> Amit
I simply mean that pci_disable_device does not seem to disable
interrupts.
--
MST
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
