[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Qemu-ppc] [PATCH for-2.11 v2] hw/ppc: CAS reset on early device hot

From: David Gibson
Subject: Re: [Qemu-ppc] [PATCH for-2.11 v2] hw/ppc: CAS reset on early device hotplug
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 12:07:22 +1000
User-agent: Mutt/1.8.3 (2017-05-23)

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 05:54:28PM -0300, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
> On 08/29/2017 04:23 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 06:11:18PM -0300, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
> > > v2:
> > > - rebased with ppc-for-2.11
> > > - function 'spapr_cas_completed' dropped
> > > - function 'spapr_drc_needed' made public and it's now used inside
> > >    'spapr_hotplugged_dev_before_cas'
> > > - 'spapr_drc_needed' was changed to support the migration of logical
> > >    DRCs with devs attached in UNUSED state
> > > - new function: 'spapr_clear_pending_events'. This function is used
> > >    inside ppc_spapr_reset to reset the pending_events QTAILQ
> > Thanks for the followup, unfortunately there is still an important bug
> > left, see comments on the patch itself.
> > 
> > At a higher level, though, looking at the event reset code made me
> > think of a possible even simpler solution to this problem.
> > 
> > The queue of events (both hotplug and epow) is already in a simple
> > internal form that's independent of the two delivery mechanisms.  The
> > only difference is what event source triggers the interrupt.  This
> > explains why an extra hotplug event after the CAS "unstuck" the queue.
> > 
> > AFAICT, a spurious interrupts here should be harmless - the kernel
> > will just check the queue and find nothing there.
> > 
> > So, it should be sufficient to, after CAS, pulse the hotplug queue
> > interrupt if the hotplug queue is negotiated.
> > 
> This is something I've tried in my first attempts at this problem, before
> sending the first patch in which I blocked hotplug before CAS. Back then,
> the problem was that the kernel panics with sig 11 (acess of bad area) when
> receiving the pulse after CAS.


> I've investigated it a bit today and it seems that it still the case. Firing
> an IRQ right
> after CAS breaks the kernel. In fact, if you time a regular CPU hotplug
> right after
> CAS you'll get the same sig 11 kernel ooops. It looks like there is a time
> window after
> CAS that the kernel can't handle the hotplug process and pulsing the hotplug
> queue in this window breaks the guest. I've tried some hacks such as pulsing
> the queue
> in the first 'event_scan' call made by the guest, but apparently it is still
> too early.
> I've sent an email to the linuxppc-dev mailing list talking about this
> behavior
> and asking if there is a reliable way to know when  we can safely pulse the
> hotplug
> queue. Meanwhile, I'll keep working in the v3 respin of this patch in case
> this
> solution of pulsing the hotplug queue ends up being not feasible.

Right.  As Ben's reply says that definitely looks like a guest kernel
bug.  But, it's in enough kernels in the wild that we really need to
work around it anyway.  I think the reset-at-CAS approach is our best
bet to accomplish that at this stage.

Note that the clear-queue-at-reset preliminary cleanup will be
valuable even if we end up not needing the rest of the reset at CAS

David Gibson                    | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au  | minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
                                | _way_ _around_!

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]