Re: [PATCH] spapr: Migrate CAS reboot flag

[Greg Kurz]

On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 19:16:08 +1000
David Gibson <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 07:29:02PM +0100, Greg Kurz wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 13:14:35 +0100
> > Greg Kurz <address@hidden> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 11:37:24 +0100
> > > Laurent Vivier <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On 16/01/2020 09:48, Greg Kurz wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 19:10:37 +0100
> > > > > Laurent Vivier <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > >> Hi,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On 15/01/2020 18:48, Greg Kurz wrote:
> > > > >>> Migration can potentially race with CAS reboot. If the migration 
> > > > >>> thread
> > > > >>> completes migration after CAS has set spapr->cas_reboot but before 
> > > > >>> the
> > > > >>> mainloop could pick up the reset request and reset the machine, the
> > > > >>> guest is migrated unrebooted and the destination doesn't reboot it
> > > > >>> either because it isn't aware a CAS reboot was needed (eg, because a
> > > > >>> device was added before CAS). This likely result in a broken or hung
> > > > >>> guest.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Even if it is small, the window between CAS and CAS reboot is 
> > > > >>> enough to
> > > > >>> re-qualify spapr->cas_reboot as state that we should migrate. Add a 
> > > > >>> new
> > > > >>> subsection for that and always send it when a CAS reboot is pending.
> > > > >>> This may cause migration to older QEMUs to fail but it is still 
> > > > >>> better
> > > > >>> than end up with a broken guest.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> The destination cannot honour the CAS reboot request from a post 
> > > > >>> load
> > > > >>> handler because this must be done after the guest is fully restored.
> > > > >>> It is thus done from a VM change state handler.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Reported-by: Lukáš Doktor <address@hidden>
> > > > >>> Signed-off-by: Greg Kurz <address@hidden>
> > > > >>> ---
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I'm wondering if the problem can be related with the fact that
> > > > >> main_loop_should_exit() could release qemu_global_mutex in
> > > > >> pause_all_vcpus() in the reset case?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 1602 static bool main_loop_should_exit(void)
> > > > >> 1603 {
> > > > >> ...
> > > > >> 1633     request = qemu_reset_requested();
> > > > >> 1634     if (request) {
> > > > >> 1635         pause_all_vcpus();
> > > > >> 1636         qemu_system_reset(request);
> > > > >> 1637         resume_all_vcpus();
> > > > >> 1638         if (!runstate_check(RUN_STATE_RUNNING) &&
> > > > >> 1639                 !runstate_check(RUN_STATE_INMIGRATE)) {
> > > > >> 1640             runstate_set(RUN_STATE_PRELAUNCH);
> > > > >> 1641         }
> > > > >> 1642     }
> > > > >> ...
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I already sent a patch for this kind of problem (in current Juan pull
> > > > >> request):
> > > > >>
> > > > >> "runstate: ignore finishmigrate -> prelaunch transition"
> > > > >>
> > > > > 
> > > > > IIUC your patch avoids an invalid 'prelaunch' -> 'postmigrate' 
> > > > > runstate
> > > > > transition that can happen if the migration thread sets the runstate 
> > > > > to
> > > > > 'finishmigrate' when pause_all_vcpus() releases the main loop mutex.
> > > > > 
> > > > > ie. symptom of the problem is QEMU aborting, correct ? The issue I'm
> > > > > trying to fix is a guest breakage caused by a discrepancy between
> > > > > QEMU and the guest after migration has succeeded.
> > > > > 
> > > > >> but I don't know if it could fix this one.
> > > > >>
> > > > > 
> > > > > I don't think so and your patch kinda illustrates it. If the runstate
> > > > > is 'finishmigrate' when returning from pause_all_vcpus(), this means
> > > > > that state was sent to the destination before we could actually reset
> > > > > the machine.
> > > > 
> > > > Yes, you're right.
> > > > 
> > > > But the question behind my comment was: is it expected to have a pending
> > > > reset while we are migrating?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Nothing prevents qemu_system_reset_request() to be called when migration
> > > is active. 
> > > 
> > > > Perhaps H_CAS can return H_BUSY and wait the end of the migration and
> > > > then be fully executed on destination?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > And so we would need to teach SLOF to try H_CAS again until it stops
> > > returning H_BUSY ? It seems safer to migrate the CAS reboot flag IMHO.
> > > 
> > 
> > Ok I've tried that with a patched SLOF that sleeps 500ms and tries CAS
> > again if H_BUSY was returned. It fixes the issue but it looks a bit
> > ugly because of the polling with an arbitrary timeout in SLOF... I'm
> > not very comfortable either with calling migration_is_active() from
> > the CAS code in QEMU.
> > 
> > David,
> > 
> > Any suggestion ?
> 
> Yeah, I think looping in SLOF is a worse idea than migrating the
> cas_reboot flag.
> 
> But.. a better solution still might be to just remove the remaining
> causes for CAS reboot entirely.  CAS reboots pretty much suck when
> they happen, anyway.
> 

I Agree.

> With the irq changeover condition removed, I think the remaining
> causes are more theoretical than practical situations at this point.
> 

FWIW, hotpluggging a PCI device before CAS result in a hung guest (not yet
investigated the details).

pgpXS02dGFHPO.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature