Re: [PATCH] acpi: pcihp: make pending delete expire in 5sec

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 06:16:18PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> with Q35 using ACPI PCI hotplug by default, user's request to unplug
> device is ignored when it's issued before guest OS has been booted.
> And any additional attempt to request device hot-unplug afterwards
> results in following error:
> 
>   "Device XYZ is already in the process of unplug"
> 
> arguably it can be considered as a regression introduced by [2],
> before which it was possible to issue unplug request multiple
> times.
> 
> Allowing pending delete expire brings ACPI PCI hotplug on par
> with native PCIe unplug behavior [1] which in its turn refers
> back to ACPI PCI hotplug ability to repeat unplug requests.
> 
> PS:
> >From ACPI point of view, unplug request sets PCI hotplug status
> bit in GPE0 block. However depending on OSPM, status bits may
> be retained (Windows) or cleared (Linux) during guest's ACPI
> subsystem initialization, and as result Linux guest looses
> plug/unplug event (no SCI generated) if plug/unplug has
> happend before guest OS initialized GPE registers handling.
> I couldn't find any restrictions wrt OPM clearing GPE status
> bits ACPI spec.
> Hence a fallback approach is to let user repeat unplug request
> later at the time when guest OS has booted.
> 
> 1) 18416c62e3 ("pcie: expire pending delete")
> 2)
> Fixes: cce8944cc9ef ("qdev-monitor: Forbid repeated device_del")
> Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>

A bit concerned about how this interacts with failover,
and 5sec is a lot of time that I hoped we'd avoid with acpi.
Any better ideas of catching such misbehaving guests?


Also at this point I do not know why we deny hotplug
pending_deleted_event in qdev core.  
Commit log says:

    Device unplug can be done asynchronously. Thus, sending the second
    device_del before the previous unplug is complete may lead to
    unexpected results. On PCIe devices, this cancels the hot-unplug
    process.

so it's a work around for an issue in pcie hotplug (and maybe shpc
too?). Maybe we should have put that check in pcie/shpc and
leave acpi along?




> ---
> CC: mst@redhat.com
> CC: anisinha@redhat.com
> CC: jusual@redhat.com
> CC: kraxel@redhat.com
> ---
>  hw/acpi/pcihp.c | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/hw/acpi/pcihp.c b/hw/acpi/pcihp.c
> index dcfb779a7a..cd4f9fee0a 100644
> --- a/hw/acpi/pcihp.c
> +++ b/hw/acpi/pcihp.c
> @@ -357,6 +357,8 @@ void acpi_pcihp_device_unplug_request_cb(HotplugHandler 
> *hotplug_dev,
>       * acpi_pcihp_eject_slot() when the operation is completed.
>       */
>      pdev->qdev.pending_deleted_event = true;
> +    pdev->qdev.pending_deleted_expires_ms =
> +        qemu_clock_get_ms(QEMU_CLOCK_VIRTUAL) + 5000; /* 5 secs */
>      s->acpi_pcihp_pci_status[bsel].down |= (1U << slot);
>      acpi_send_event(DEVICE(hotplug_dev), ACPI_PCI_HOTPLUG_STATUS);
>  }
> -- 
> 2.39.1