Message-ID: <YFMYzkg101isRXIM@unreal>
Date:   Thu, 18 Mar 2021 11:09:34 +0200
From:   Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To:     Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
Cc:     Amey Narkhede <ameynarkhede03@...il.com>,
        raphael.norwitz@...anix.com, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        bhelgaas@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        alay.shah@...anix.com, suresh.gumpula@...anix.com,
        shyam.rajendran@...anix.com, felipe@...anix.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] PCI/sysfs: Allow userspace to query and set device
 reset mechanism

On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:31:40AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 15:58:40 +0200
> Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 06:47:18PM +0530, Amey Narkhede wrote:
> > > On 21/03/17 01:47PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 04:53:09PM +0530, Amey Narkhede wrote:
> > > > > On 21/03/17 01:02PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 03:54:47PM +0530, Amey Narkhede wrote:
> > > > > > > On 21/03/17 06:20AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 06:32:32PM +0000, Raphael Norwitz wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 10:29:50AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 15 Mar 2021 21:03:41 +0530
> > > > > > > > > > Amey Narkhede <ameynarkhede03@...il.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On 21/03/15 05:07PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 08:34:09AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 15 Mar 2021 14:52:26 +0100
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pali Rohár <pali@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday 15 March 2021 19:13:23 Amey Narkhede wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > slot reset (pci_dev_reset_slot_function) and secondary bus
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reset(pci_parent_bus_reset) which I think are hot reset and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > warm reset respectively.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. PCI secondary bus reset = PCIe Hot Reset. Slot reset is just another
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > type of reset, which is currently implemented only for PCIe hot plug
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > bridges and for PowerPC PowerNV platform and it just call PCI secondary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > bus reset with some other hook. PCIe Warm Reset does not have API in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > kernel and therefore drivers do not export this type of reset via any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > kernel function (yet).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Warm reset is beyond the scope of this series, but could be implemented
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in a compatible way to fit within the pci_reset_fn_methods[] array
> > > > > > > > > > > > > defined here.  Note that with this series the resets available through
> > > > > > > > > > > > > pci_reset_function() and the per device reset attribute is sysfs remain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly the same as they are currently.  The bus and slot reset
> > > > > > > > > > > > > methods used here are limited to devices where only a single function is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > affected by the reset, therefore it is not like the patch you proposed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > which performed a reset irrespective of the downstream devices.  This
> > > > > > > > > > > > > series only enables selection of the existing methods.  Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Alex,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I asked the patch author here [1], but didn't get any response, maybe
> > > > > > > > > > > > you can answer me. What is the use case scenario for this functionality?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YE389lAqjJSeTolM@unreal/
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Sorry for not responding immediately. There were some buggy wifi cards
> > > > > > > > > > > which needed FLR explicitly not sure if that behavior is fixed in
> > > > > > > > > > > drivers. Also there is use a case at Nutanix but the engineer who
> > > > > > > > > > > is involved is on PTO that is why I did not respond immediately as
> > > > > > > > > > > I don't know the details yet.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > And more generally, devices continue to have reset issues and we
> > > > > > > > > > impose a fixed priority in our ordering.  We can and probably should
> > > > > > > > > > continue to quirk devices when we find broken resets so that we have
> > > > > > > > > > the best default behavior, but it's currently not easy for an end user
> > > > > > > > > > to experiment, ie. this reset works, that one doesn't.  We might also
> > > > > > > > > > have platform issues where a given reset works better on a certain
> > > > > > > > > > platform.  Exposing a way to test these things might lead to better
> > > > > > > > > > quirks.  In the case I think Pali was looking for, they wanted a
> > > > > > > > > > mechanism to force a bus reset, if this was in reference to a single
> > > > > > > > > > function device, this could be accomplished by setting a priority for
> > > > > > > > > > that mechanism, which would translate to not only the sysfs reset
> > > > > > > > > > attribute, but also the reset mechanism used by vfio-pci.  Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Alex
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > To confirm from our end - we have seen many such instances where default
> > > > > > > > > reset methods have not worked well on our platform. Debugging these
> > > > > > > > > issues is painful in practice, and this interface would make it far
> > > > > > > > > easier.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Having an interface like this would also help us better communicate the
> > > > > > > > > issues we find with upstream. Allowing others to more easily test our
> > > > > > > > > (or other entities') findings should give better visibility into
> > > > > > > > > which issues apply to the device in general and which are platform
> > > > > > > > > specific. In disambiguating the former from the latter, we should be
> > > > > > > > > able to better quirk devices for everyone, and in the latter cases, this
> > > > > > > > > interface allows for a safer and more elegant solution than any of the
> > > > > > > > > current alternatives.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So to summarize, we are talking about test and debug interface to
> > > > > > > > overcome HW bugs, am I right?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My personal experience shows that once the easy workaround exists
> > > > > > > > (and write to generally available sysfs is very simple), the vendors
> > > > > > > > and users desire for proper fix decreases drastically. IMHO, we will
> > > > > > > > see increase of copy/paste in SO and blog posts, but reduce in quirks.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My 2-cents.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I agree with your point but at least it gives the userspace ability
> > > > > > > to use broken device until bug is fixed in upstream.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As I said, I don't expect many fixes once "userspace" will be able to
> > > > > > use cheap workaround. There is no incentive to fix it.
>
> We can increase the annoyance factor of using a modified set of reset
> methods, but ultimately we can only control what goes into our kernel,
> other kernels might take v1 of this series and incorporate it
> regardless of what happens here.
>
> > > > > > > This is also applicable for obscure devices without upstream
> > > > > > > drivers for example custom FPGA based devices.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is not relevant to upstream kernel. Those vendors ship everything
> > > > > > custom, they don't need upstream, we don't need them :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > By custom I meant hobbyists who could tinker with their custom FPGA.
> > > >
> > > > I invite such hobbyists to send patches and include their FPGA in
> > > > upstream kernel.
>
> This is potentially another good use case, how receptive are we going
> to be to an FPGA design that botches a reset.  Do they have a valid
> device ID for us to base a quirk on, are they just squatting on one, or
> using the default from a library.  Maybe the next bitstream will
> resolve it, maybe without any external indication.  IOW, what would the
> quality level be for that quirk versus using this as a workaround,
> where the user probably wouldn't mind a kernel nag?

It is worth to solve it when the need arises.

>
> > > > > > > Another main application which I forgot to mention is virtualization
> > > > > > > where vmm wants to reset the device when the guest is reset,
> > > > > > > to emulate machine reboot as closely as possible.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It can work in very narrow case, because reset will cause to device
> > > > > > reprobe and most likely the driver will be different from the one that
> > > > > > started reset. I can imagine that net devices will lose their state and
> > > > > > config after such reset too.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Not sure if I got that 100% right. The pci_reset_function() function
> > > > > saves and restores device state over the reset.
> > > >
> > > > I'm talking about netdev state, but whatever given the existence of
> > > > sysfs reset knob.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > IMHO, it will be saner for everyone if virtualization don't try such resets.
>
> That would cause a massive regression in device assignment support.  As
> with other sysfs attributes, triggering them alongside a running driver
> is probably not going to end well.  However, pci_reset_function() is
> extremely useful for stopping devices and returning them to a default
> state, when either rebooting a VM or returning the device to the host.
> The device is not removed and re-probed when this occurs, vfio-pci is
> able to hold onto the device across these actions.  Sure, don't reset a
> netdev device when it's in use, that's not what these are used for.
>
> > > > > The exists reset sysfs attribute was added for exactly this case
> > > > > though.
> > > >
> > > > I didn't know the rationale behind that file till you said and I
> > > > googled libvirt discussion, so ok. Do you propose that libvirt
> > > > will manage database of devices and their working reset types?
> > > >
> > > I don't have much idea about internals of libvirt but why would
> > > it need to manage database of working reset types? It could just
> > > read new reset_methods attribute to get the list of supported reset
> > > methods.
> >
> > Because the idea of this patch is to read all supported reset types and
> > allow to the user to chose the working one. The user will do it with
> > help from StackOverflow, but libvirt will need to have some sort of
> > database, otherwise it won't be different from simple "echo 1 > reset"
> > which will iterate over all supported resets anyway.
>
> AFAIK, libvirt no longer attempts to do resets itself, or is at least
> moving in that direction.  vfio-pci will reset as device when they're
> opened by a user (when available) or triggered via the API.

<...>

> > The difference here is that this is a workaround to solve bugs that
> > should be fixed in the kernel.
>
> If we want to discourage using this as a primary means to resolve reset
> issues on a device then we can create log warnings any time it's used.
> Downstreams that really want this functionality are going to take this
> patch from the list whether we accept it or not.  As above, it seems
> there are valid use cases.  Even with mainstream vfio in QEMU, I go
> through some hoops trying to determine if I can do a secondary bus
> reset rather than a PM reset because it's not specified anywhere what a
> "soft reset" means for any given device.  This sort of interface could
> make it easier to apply a system policy that a pci_reset_function()
> should always perform a secondary bus reset if the only other option is
> a PM reset.  Maybe that policy mostly makes sense for a VM use case, so
> we'd want one policy by default and another when the device is used for
> this functionality.  How could we accomplish that with a quirk?  Thanks,

I'm lost here, does vfio-pci use sysfs interface or internal to the kernel API?

If it is latter then we don't really need sysfs, if not, we still need
some sort of DB to create second policy, because "supported != working".
What am I missing?

Thanks

>
> Alex
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists