Message-ID: <58477AE7.10703@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date:   Wed, 7 Dec 2016 10:58:47 +0800
From:   Cao jin <caoj.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
To:     Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
CC:     <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        <izumi.taku@...fujitsu.com>, <mst@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vfio/pci: Support error recovery



On 12/06/2016 11:25 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Dec 2016 14:11:03 +0800
> Cao jin <caoj.fnst@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 12/06/2016 12:17 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 13:52:03 +0800
>>> Cao jin <caoj.fnst@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
>>>   
>>>> On 12/04/2016 11:30 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:  
>>>>> On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 20:16:42 +0800
>>>>> Cao jin <caoj.fnst@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
>>>>>     
>>>>>> On 12/01/2016 10:55 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:    
>>>>>>> On Thu, 1 Dec 2016 21:40:00 +0800      
>>>>>>    
>>>>>>>>> If an AER fault occurs and the user doesn't do a reset, what
>>>>>>>>> happens when that device is released and a host driver tries to make
>>>>>>>>> use of it?  The user makes no commitment to do a reset and there are
>>>>>>>>> only limited configurations where we even allow the user to perform a
>>>>>>>>> reset.
>>>>>>>>>         
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Limited? Do you mean the things __pci_dev_reset() can do?      
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I mean that there are significant device and guest configuration
>>>>>>> restrictions in order to support AER.  For instance, all the functions
>>>>>>> of the slot need to appear in a PCI-e topology in the guest with all
>>>>>>> the functions in the right place such that a guest bus reset translates
>>>>>>> into a host bus reset.  The physical functions cannot be split between
>>>>>>> guests even if IOMMU isolation would otherwise allow it.  The user
>>>>>>> needs to explicitly enable AER support for the devices.  A VM need to
>>>>>>> be specifically configured for AER support in order to set any sort of
>>>>>>> expectations of a guest directed bus reset, let alone a guarantee that
>>>>>>> it will happen.  So all the existing VMs, where functions are split
>>>>>>> between guests, or the topology isn't exactly right, or AER isn't
>>>>>>> enabled see a regression from the above change as the device is no
>>>>>>> longer reset.
>>>>>>>       
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not clear why set these restrictions in the current design. I take
>>>>>> a glance at older versions of qemu's patchset, their thoughts is:
>>>>>> translate a guest bus reset into a host bus reset(Which is
>>>>>> unreasonable[*] to me). And I guess, that's the *cause* of these
>>>>>> restrictions?  Is there any other stories behind these restrictions?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [*] In physical world, set bridge's secondary bus reset would send
>>>>>> hot-reset TLP to all functions below, trigger every device's reset
>>>>>> separately. Emulated device should behave the same, means just using
>>>>>> each device's DeviceClass->reset method.    
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you trying to say that an FLR is equivalent to a link reset?    
>>>>
>>>> No.  Look at old versions patchset, there is one names "vote the
>>>> function 0 to do host bus reset when aer occurred"[1], that is what I
>>>> called "translate guest link reset to host link reset", and what I think
>>>> unreasonable(and I think it also does it wrongly).  So in v10 version of
>>>> mine, I dropped it.
>>>>
>>>> [1]https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2016-05/msg02987.html
>>>>
>>>> If "translate guest link reset to host link reset" is right, I can
>>>> understand these restrictions[2][3].
>>>>
>>>> [2]. All physical functions in a single card must be assigned to the VM
>>>>      with AER enabled on each and configured on the same virtual bus.
>>>> [3]. Don't place other devices under the virtual bus in [2], no matter
>>>>      physical, emulated, or paravirtual, even if other device
>>>>      supporting AER signaling
>>>>
>>>> Certain device's FLR calls its DeviceClass->reset method; link reset
>>>> calls DeviceClass->reset of each device which on the bus. So, apparently
>>>> they have difference.  But if there is only 1 vfio-pci device under the
>>>> virtual pci bus,  I think FLR can be equivalent to a link reset, right?  
>>>
>>> No.  An FLR resets the device while a secondary bus reset does a reset
>>> of the link and the device.  AER errors are sometimes issues with the
>>> link, not the device.  If we were to perform only an FLR, we're not
>>> performing the same reset as would be done on bare metal.
>>>    
>>
>> Thanks for you explanation, it does helps, except the last sentence, I
>> think I understand it now: fatal error implies there may be link issue
>> exists(pci express spec: 6.2.2.2.1), so, should do link reset for fatal
>> error(that is what and why aer core does). And so, in patch[1] above,
>> qemu does a link reset when seeing secondary bus reset bit of virtual
>> bus got set. is it right?
> 
> QEMU is only going to do a bus reset if the guest is participating in
> AER recovery AND QEMU supports AER recovery AND the guest topology
> configuration allows the guest bus reset to induce a host bus reset.
> vfio does not know that QEMU is the user and cannot assume the user
> will perform a bus reset.  We need to give the user the ability to
> recover from an AER, but not rely on the user to do so.  We cannot
> assume the user's intention or capabilities.  Thanks,
> 

Got your points, thanks a lot, will consider it more,

-- 
Sincerely,
Cao jin

Powered by blists - more mailing lists