OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

# virtio-comment message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] clarify device reset

• From: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
• To: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
• Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 14:48:57 +0100

On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 12:44:03 +0100
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 10:19:04 +0100
> Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 12:08:23 +0100
> > Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Properly specify that the method for the driver to request a
> > > device reset is transport specific, and some action the device
> > > has to take.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > RFC v2 -> v3:
> > >   - re-worded the "must not send notifications" clause to avoid
> > > guessing
> > >   - added a driver conformance clause on how a driver should find
> > > out when reset is complete
> > > RFC -> RFC v2:
> > >   - moved reset spec to basic facilities
> > >
> > > ---
> > >  conformance.tex |  2 ++
> > >  content.tex     | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
> > >  2 files changed, 21 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/conformance.tex b/conformance.tex
> > > index eb3324053080..21fe89ccd937 100644
> > > --- a/conformance.tex
> > > +++ b/conformance.tex
> > > @@ -60,6 +60,7 @@ \section{Conformance
> > > Targets}\label{sec:Conformance / Conformance Targets}
> > > \begin{itemize} \item \ref{drivernormative:Basic Facilities of a
> > > Virtio Device / Device Status Field} \item
> > > \ref{drivernormative:Basic Facilities of a Virtio Device / Feature
> > > Bits} +\item \ref{drivernormative:Basic Facilities of a Virtio
> > > Device / Device Reset} \item \ref{drivernormative:Basic Facilities
> > > of a Virtio Device / Device Configuration Space} \item
> > > \ref{drivernormative:Basic Facilities of a Virtio Device /
> > > Virtqueues} \item \ref{drivernormative:Basic Facilities of a
> > > Virtio Device / Message Framing} @@ -271,6 +272,7 @@
> > > \section{Conformance Targets}\label{sec:Conformance / Conformance
> > > Targets} \begin{itemize} \item \ref{devicenormative:Basic
> > > Facilities of a Virtio Device / Device Status Field} \item
> > > \ref{devicenormative:Basic Facilities of a Virtio Device / Feature
> > > Bits} +\item \ref{devicenormative:Basic Facilities of a Virtio
> > > Device / Device Reset} \item \ref{devicenormative:Basic Facilities
> > > of a Virtio Device / Device Configuration Space} \item
> > > \ref{devicenormative:Basic Facilities of a Virtio Device / Message
> > > Framing} \item \ref{devicenormative:Basic Facilities of a Virtio
> > > Device / Virtqueues / The Virtqueue Descriptor Table} diff --git
> > > a/content.tex b/content.tex index 620c0e28c9a7..9cdefe16509e
> > > 100644 --- a/content.tex +++ b/content.tex @@ -193,6 +193,25 @@
> > > \section{Notifications}\label{sec:Basic Facilities of a Virtio
> > > Device terminology. Occasionally, the term event is used to refer
> > > to a notification or a receipt of a notification. +\section{Device
> > > Reset}\label{sec:Basic Facilities of a Virtio Device / Device
> > > Reset} + +The driver may initiate a device reset at various times;
> > > notably, during +device initialization and device cleanup.
> >
> > Are there times the driver may not initiate a device reset? What are
> > we trying to tell with this sentence?
>
> s/may initiate/may want to initiate/

Definitively better. I would still prefer avoiding the discussion
on when the driver may want to reset the device. But I can live
with this.

>
> >
> > If we are just looking for an introductionary sentence, I would
> > probably go with something like "A device reset be either initiated
> > by the

s/be/can be/

> > driver, or by a system reset, or other external controls."
>
> It was mostly supposed to be a lead-in.
>
> I'm not sure we want to spell out things like system resets. They are
> platform-specific, and virtio devices are basically just a device
> there.

Hm. AFAIR the only way to make the device non-live, i.e. illegal for it
to e.g. access a queue, which is in guest memory is device reset. Now if
I want to perform a reboot, I do want to stop the devices from poking
such memory. But I think, in linux we don't reset the device form the
driver, before reboot, and I believe we don't have to because we are
guaranteed that the device will get reset. Or is my memory failing me?

I think it is of value to clarify that a virtio reset can possibly be
initiated by other means than explicitly specified by the virtio spec,
and that when a 'proxy-device' is reset, the 'virtio-device' is to be
reset as well. We do mention system reset once, in a normative section
at that (2.2.2).

> Of course, the actual implementation will share backend code to
> reinitialize to a clean state for driver-initiated resets, system
> resets, and whatever else there might be, but I consider that an
> implementation detail and not something that needs to be specified.
>
> We do want to spell out, however, what a driver can expect and a device
> needs to do for a driver-initiated reset, and that's what this update
> aims to do.
>
> >
> > > +
> > > +The mechanism used by the driver to initiate the reset is
> > > transport specific. +
> > > +\devicenormative{\subsection}{Device Reset}{Basic Facilities of a
> > > Virtio Device / Device Reset} +
> > > +A device MUST reinitialize device status to 0 after receiving a
> > > reset.
> > > +
> >
> > What is the intent behind this sentence?
> >
> > One way I can read this it, that the device reset is not allowed to
> > fail. I.e. device must reinitialize status to after receiving a reset
> > and status 0 indicating the reset is done implies, that a reset must
> > succeed eventually (provided the device did receive).
>
> Yes, I don't think it makes sense to reject a reset.
>

I don't know. And if that is what we want to say, I would certainly
prefer a SHOULD over a must. E.g. what if the device looses power
between receiving the reset and being able to finish it. Also if
we want to express that a reset should not fail we should say that
in a more straight forward way.

How do we expect the device and the driver to deal with a device
error that ain't recoverable even by a device reset? AFAIR all
the device can do is set DEVICE_NEEDS_RESET to indicate "that the device
has experienced an error from which it canât recover". On the other
hand, I think the most reasonable way for a driver to meet
DEVICE_NEEDS_RESET
is to reset it and make an attempt to re-initialize it...

> >
> > The other way i can read it is, what I would rather have worded as:
> > "The device MUST indicate the completion of the reset by
> > reinitializing the device status to 0".
>
> That's also true, but I think it is already covered?
>

It is IMHO implicitly covered by the driver normative.

> >
> >
> > > +A device MUST NOT send notifications after indicating completion
> > > of +the reset by reinitializing the device status to 0.
> >
> > I've just realized, that 'after' is very open to the right. Of course
> > the device may send notifications again after the driver
> > re-initialized the device as per 3.1.1.
>
> Append "until the driver re-initializes the device."?
>

That is another solution.

> >
> > Maybe it is wiser to tie this restriction to the current status value
> > (without any after or before), and do it where the notifications are
> > described.
> >
> > Also a device that has status 0 may not poke the virtqueues. If we
> > are explicit about the notifications, we should be explicit about
> > the virtqueues as well.
>
> What about
>
> "A device MUST NOT send notifications or process queue buffers after
> indication completion of the reset by reinitializing the device status
> to 0, until the driver re-initializes the device."
>
> ?

Getting better, but IMHO not perfect. Process queue buffers is a bit
vague IMHO. Even examining (reading) the ring(s) is taboo in my opinion,
and I'm not sure that is unambiguously covered by 'process queue
buffers'. In my opinion after a successful reset, the driver is
entitled to even hot-unplug the ram that used to host the queues,
notifier bits, etc.

All this said, I believe the v3 is already a significant improvement,
and the virtio spec ain't the most formal and painfully precise
specification anyway. So if you don't feel like polishing this even
further.

Reviewed-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>

Regards,
Halil


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]