RE: [RFC] Revert "virtio_pci: Support surprise removal of virtio pci

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


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Parav Pandit <parav@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2024 6:18 PM
> To: Li,Rongqing <lirongqing@xxxxxxxxx>; mst@xxxxxxxxxx;
> jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx; xuanzhuo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: songyang23 <songyang23@xxxxxxxxx>; liubokai <liubokai@xxxxxxxxx>;
> Song,Zhan <songzhan@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: [RFC] Revert "virtio_pci: Support surprise removal of virtio pci
> > From: Li,Rongqing <lirongqing@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2024 2:45 PM
> >
> > Revert "virtio_pci: Support surprise removal of virtio pci device"
> >
> > This reverts commit 43bb40c5b92659966bdf4bfe584fde0a3575a049.
> >
> > Marking the device as broken will cause the uncompleted IO request on
> > virtio-blk since virtblk_done will not continue when it find the
> > broken virtqueu at last it will cause the failure of removal of
> > virtio-blk device because of uncompleted IO request
> >
> > The correct fix for the issue that commit 43bb40c5b9 ("virtio_pci:
> > Support surprise removal of virtio pci device") tried to fix is that
> > virtio backend always complete the IO request as soon as possible
> >
> This can never be guaranteed by a device and by pci spec given it is surprise
> removal by definition.
> For Linux virtio blk is not the only block device which has surprised removal.
> Nvme blk driver has supported surprise removal for several years now.
> I am sure nbd and others would have too given its network.
> I am not familiar with the blk driver stack.
> So please explore with blk community of how to complete an aborted/never
> completed io which never completed by the device.
> Since the blk driver knows exactly that the device is removed, it can 100%
> complete the io to upper layer with the error in deterministic way.

Without the commit 43bb40c5b92("virtio_pci: Support surprise removal of virtio pci device"), 
My virtio-blk device can be removed successfully, with this commit, and if we use fio to send io
requests the virtio-blk, The removal always failed.

Once virt queue is marked as broken, io request can not be finished since lots of virtio functions
will check If the vq is broken, if broken, exit directly, like virtqueue_get_buf_ctx_packed

static void *virtqueue_get_buf_ctx_packed(struct virtqueue *_vq,
                      unsigned int *len,
                      void **ctx)
    struct vring_virtqueue *vq = to_vvq(_vq);
    u16 last_used, id, last_used_idx;
    bool used_wrap_counter;
    void *ret;


    if (unlikely(vq->broken)) {
        return NULL;

Nvme is different from virtio, it can ensure that all requests are flushed to completion, like below patch:

commit 1d39e6928cbd0eb737c51545210b5186d5551ba1
Author: Keith Busch <keith.busch@xxxxxxxxx>
Date:   Wed Jun 6 08:13:08 2018 -0600

    nvme-pci: unquiesce dead controller queues

    This patch ensures the nvme namsepace request queues are not quiesced
    on a surprise removal. It's possible the queues were previously killed
    in a failed reset, so the queues need to be unquiesced to ensure all
    requests are flushed to completion.

    Signed-off-by: Keith Busch <keith.busch@xxxxxxxxx>
    Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
    Reviewed-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@xxxxxxx>
    Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
    Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>


[Index of Archives]     [KVM Development]     [Libvirt Development]     [Libvirt Users]     [CentOS Virtualization]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux