Message-ID: <20200722082746.GS7191@Air-de-Roger>
Date:   Wed, 22 Jul 2020 10:27:46 +0200
From:   Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@...rix.com>
To:     Anchal Agarwal <anchalag@...zon.com>
CC:     <marmarek@...isiblethingslab.com>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        <tglx@...utronix.de>, <mingo@...hat.com>, <bp@...en8.de>,
        <hpa@...or.com>, <x86@...nel.org>, <jgross@...e.com>,
        <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        <kamatam@...zon.com>, <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
        <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>, <axboe@...nel.dk>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
        <rjw@...ysocki.net>, <len.brown@...el.com>, <pavel@....cz>,
        <peterz@...radead.org>, <eduval@...zon.com>, <sblbir@...zon.com>,
        <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>, <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>, <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/11] xen/manage: keep track of the on-going suspend
 mode

On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 07:55:09PM +0000, Anchal Agarwal wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 10:30:18AM +0200, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Marek: I'm adding you in case you could be able to give this a try and
> > make sure it doesn't break suspend for dom0.
> > 
> > On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 12:17:36AM +0000, Anchal Agarwal wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 11:37:05AM +0200, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 09:47:04PM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> > > > > (Roger, question for you at the very end)
> > > > >
> > > > > On 7/17/20 3:10 PM, Anchal Agarwal wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 05:18:08PM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> > > > > >> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On 7/15/20 4:49 PM, Anchal Agarwal wrote:
> > > > > >>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 11:52:01AM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> > > > > >>>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> On 7/2/20 2:21 PM, Anchal Agarwal wrote:
> > > > > >>>> And PVH dom0.
> > > > > >>> That's another good use case to make it work with however, I still
> > > > > >>> think that should be tested/worked upon separately as the feature itself
> > > > > >>> (PVH Dom0) is very new.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Same question here --- will this break PVH dom0?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > I haven't tested it as a part of this series. Is that a blocker here?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I suspect dom0 will not do well now as far as hibernation goes, in which
> > > > > case you are not breaking anything.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Roger?
> > > >
> > > > I sadly don't have any box ATM that supports hibernation where I
> > > > could test it. We have hibernation support for PV dom0, so while I
> > > > haven't done anything specific to support or test hibernation on PVH
> > > > dom0 I would at least aim to not make this any worse, and hence the
> > > > check should at least also fail for a PVH dom0?
> > > >
> > > > if (!xen_hvm_domain() || xen_initial_domain())
> > > >     return -ENODEV;
> > > >
> > > > Ie: none of this should be applied to a PVH dom0, as it doesn't have
> > > > PV devices and hence should follow the bare metal device suspend.
> > > >
> > > So from what I understand you meant for any guest running on pvh dom0 should not
> > > hibernate if hibernation is triggered from within the guest or should they?
> > 
> > Er no to both I think. What I meant is that a PVH dom0 should be able
> > to properly suspend, and we should make sure this work doesn't make
> > this any harder (or breaks it if it's currently working).
> > 
> > Or at least that's how I understood the question raised by Boris.
> > 
> > You are adding code to the generic suspend path that's also used by dom0
> > in order to perform bare metal suspension. This is fine now for a PV
> > dom0 because the code is gated on xen_hvm_domain, but you should also
> > take into account that a PVH dom0 is considered a HVM domain, and
> > hence will get the notifier registered.
> >
> Ok that makes sense now. This is good to be safe, but my patch series is only to
> support domU hibernation, so I am not sure if this will affect pvh dom0.
> However, since I do not have a good way of testing sure I will add the check.
> 
> Moreover, in Patch-0004, I do register suspend/resume syscore_ops specifically for domU
> hibernation only if its xen_hvm_domain.

So if the hooks are only registered for domU, do you still need this
xen_hvm_domain check here?

I have to admit I'm not familiar with Linux PM suspend.

> I don't see any reason that should not
> be registered for domU's running on pvh dom0.

To be clear: it should be registered for all HVM domUs, regardless of
whether they are running on a PV or a PVH dom0. My intention was never
to suggest otherwise. It should be enabled for all HVM domUs, but
shouldn't be enabled for HVM dom0.

> Those suspend/resume callbacks will
> only be invoked in case hibernation and will be skipped if generic suspend path
> is in progress. Do you see any issue with that?

No, I think it's fine.

Roger.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists