[virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH] virtio: introduce SUSPEND bit in device status
"Zhu, Lingshan" <[email protected]> Mon, 26 Feb 2024 09:36:24 +0800
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.virtio-dev,dev.linux.lists.virtio-comment |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 2/25/2024 4:52 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 03:44:41PM +0800, Zhu, Lingshan wrote: >> >> On 2/20/2024 1:09 PM, David Stevens wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 1:06 PM Zhu, Lingshan <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On 2/19/2024 2:46 PM, David Stevens wrote: >>>>> On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 11:11 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 09:23:06PM +0800, Zhu Lingshan wrote: >>>>>>> This commit allows the driver to suspend the device by >>>>>>> introducing a new status bit SUSPEND in device_status. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This commit also introduce a new feature bit VIRTIO_F_SUSPEND >>>>>>> which indicating whether the device support SUSPEND. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This SUSPEND bit is transport-independent. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Zhu Lingshan <[email protected]> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <[email protected]> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Eugenio Pérez <[email protected]> >>>>>> Could we get some kind of dscription how this has taken into >>>>>> consideration the proposal from David Stevens? >>>>>> >>>>>> I find it really tiring when there are competing patches with authors >>>>>> ignoring each other's work and leaving it up to reviewers to >>>>>> figure out how do the patches compare. >>>>> This patch looks like it could be used to implement my use case. >>>>> However, parts of it are a bit vague and imprecise, so it's hard to >>>>> actually say whether my use case would actually be covered by a >>>>> specific implementation of this proposal. >>>> I am on vacation till this Friday. Shall we co-work on this and >>>> post something new together? >>> That works for me. >> Cool! How about two patches in a new series: >> 1) a general virtio suspending patch describing suspending behaviors for all >> virtio devices from me, an updating version of this patch >> 2) a PCI transport suspending patch from you, describing PCI specific >> behaviors. >> >> Dose this sound good to you? > Well David's patch was more precise than yours, and also better worded. > So think if there's an agreement you guys would really start with that, > move the functionality to the status bit and make other changes as needed. I think we plan to cooperate on a new series including both the status bit and PCI transport, collaborations on both of our patches. Let's see whether this looks good to David Thanks > > > >>>>> To give specifics on what I'm trying to do, I need to allow a guest >>>>> with virtio-pci devices (including stateful devices like virtio-fs and >>>>> virtio-gpu) to be put into S1/S3, and to allow the virtio-pci devices >>>>> to wake up the guest (currently via an ACPI GPE, but eventually via a >>>>> native PCI PME). This is all done on a consumer device, so there is no >>>>> need for snapshotting or for live migration. >>>> Suspending is not dedicated only for live migration. >>>> For your use case, shall we add a new PCI section like saying: when entering >>>> SUSPEND, the device should get into S1/S3 and other PCI specific steps >>>> in PCI transport charter. >>>> >>>> That is because PCI is a transport layer of virtio, controlling virtio >>>> states by PCI sounds like a layer violation. >>> I don't know if it's really necessary to mandate that in the spec. >>> Sure, most systems are probably going to want to put the virtio-pci >>> device into S1/S3 after suspending virtio operation. But nothing >>> really breaks or goes wrong if we don't do that. >> Yes, maybe not S1/S3, I remember you want to manage power in PCI >> transport when suspend in a cap, S1/S3 is just an example. >> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> content.tex | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> diff --git a/content.tex b/content.tex >>>>>>> index 0a62dce..3d656b5 100644 >>>>>>> --- a/content.tex >>>>>>> +++ b/content.tex >>>>>>> @@ -49,6 +49,9 @@ \section{\field{Device Status} Field}\label{sec:Basic Facilities of a Virtio Dev >>>>>>> >>>>>>> \item[DEVICE_NEEDS_RESET (64)] Indicates that the device has experienced >>>>>>> an error from which it can't recover. >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> +\item[SUSPEND (16)] When VIRTIO_F_SUSPEND is negotiated, indicates that the >>>>>>> + device has been suspended by the driver. >>>>>>> \end{description} >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The \field{device status} field starts out as 0, and is reinitialized to 0 by >>>>>>> @@ -73,6 +76,10 @@ \section{\field{Device Status} Field}\label{sec:Basic Facilities of a Virtio Dev >>>>>>> recover by issuing a reset. >>>>>>> \end{note} >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +The driver SHOULD NOT set SUSPEND if FEATURES_OK is not set. >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> +When setting SUSPEND, the driver MUST re-read \field{device status} to ensure the SUSPEND bit is set. >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> \devicenormative{\subsection}{Device Status Field}{Basic Facilities of a Virtio Device / Device Status Field} >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The device MUST NOT consume buffers or send any used buffer >>>>>>> @@ -82,6 +89,25 @@ \section{\field{Device Status} Field}\label{sec:Basic Facilities of a Virtio Dev >>>>>>> that a reset is needed. If DRIVER_OK is set, after it sets DEVICE_NEEDS_RESET, the device >>>>>>> MUST send a device configuration change notification to the driver. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +The device MUST ignore SUSPEND if FEATURES_OK is not set. >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> +The device MUST ignore SUSPEND if VIRTIO_F_SUSPEND is not negotiated. >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> +The device SHOULD allow settings to \field{device status} even when SUSPEND is set. >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> +If VIRTIO_F_SUSPEND is negotiated and SUSPEND is set, the device SHOULD clear SUSPEND >>>>>>> +and resumes operation upon DRIVER_OK. >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> +If VIRTIO_F_SUSPEND is negotiated, when the driver sets SUSPEND, >>>>>>> +the device SHOULD perform the following actions before presenting SUSPEND bit in the \field{device status}: >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> +\begin{itemize} >>>>>>> +\item Stop consuming buffers of any virtqueues and mark all finished descriptors as used. >>>>>>> +\item Wait until all descriptors that being processed to finish and mark them as used. >>>>>>> +\item Flush all used buffer and send used buffer notifications to the driver. >>>>> What's the difference between the previous three lines? They might be >>>>> trying to say different things, but there is a lot of overlap in how >>>>> they're phrased. That makes it hard to figure out exactly what they're >>>>> mandating. Is it something like: "stop processing new buffers", >>>>> "finish processing any buffers that are currently in flight", "mark >>>>> all finished buffers as used and send a used buffer notification"? >>>> sure, the "mark used" parts can merge. >>>>> Also, what does this mean for devices where the driver places empty >>>>> buffers into the virtqueue that the device then holds on to for an >>>>> indeterminate period of time (e.g. network receiveq, balloon statsq, >>>>> etc)? >>>> The device doesn't process them. >>>> Oh, I should add: The driver should not make any more buffers available >>>> to the device. >>>>>>> +\item Pause its operation except \field{device status} and preserve configurations in its Device Configuration Space, see \ref{sec:Basic Facilities of a Virtio Device / Device Configuration Space} >>>>> What does "Pause its operation except device status" mean? The word >>>>> "operation" is vague, what exactly does it include? Also what does >>>>> "operate its device status" mean? >>>> Because we need to resume the device after suspending it by setting >>>> DRIVER_OK, so we need the device status >>>> filed keel alive. >>> This doesn't answer what "Pause its operation" means. If the >>> specification is not precise, then the best that can be implemented is >>> for a specific device to be compatible with a specific driver. If we >>> actually want portable, spec-compliant devices, we need explicitly >>> defined MUST/MUST NOT requirements. Presumably we want something like: >>> >>> A device MUST not send notifications while suspended. >> The device should send a last used buffer notification if >> it has buffers under processing before presenting SUSPEND >> in the device status, but the device should not process >> any new buffers. These are in devicenormative section, >> but they may be vague, I can add more details to make >> it precise, thanks for the tips >>> A device MUST ignore writes to its device configuration while >>> suspended, except for writes to the device status byte. >>> A driver MUST NOT write to a suspended device's configuration space, >>> except for the device status byte. >> sure, we can make it more precise than only pausing. >>> We also need to specify what a suspended device is allowed to do with >>> buffers it owns. For my use case of just suspending/resuming a VM, I >>> don't think it particularly matters if a suspended device writes to >>> buffers or descriptors while it is suspended. But based on what you >>> wrote about finishing any in-flight processing of buffers and not >>> processing any empty buffers, presumably you would prefer that the >>> device not be allowed to access buffer/descriptors while it is >>> suspended? That approach is probably cleaner from a pure specification >>> standpoint, but it's also more restrictive for devices and thus harder >>> to properly implement. >> When the driver sets SUSPEND, the device should finished all buffers that >> already under processing, include the in-flight buffers(or it may lose the >> buffers). >> And the device should not touch the buffers once it present SUSPEND in the >> device status field, because once it presents SUSPEND, the device state >> should >> be stable, people may use SUSPEND to debug the device. >> >> The device still can process the buffer before it presenting SUSPEND. >> >> Thanks >> Zhu Lingshan >>> -David --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]