Re: [PATCH] spapr: Migrate CAS reboot flag

[David Gibson]

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 11:06:18AM +0100, Greg Kurz wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 17:50:28 +1100
> David Gibson <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 10:32:55AM +0100, Greg Kurz wrote:
> > > On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 14:43:32 +1100
> > > David Gibson <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 09:04:38AM +0100, Greg Kurz wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 16:44:27 +0100
> > > > > Greg Kurz <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > 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).
> > > > > 
> > > > > commit 10f12e6450407b18b4d5a6b50d3852dcfd7fff75
> > > > > Author: Daniel Henrique Barboza <address@hidden>
> > > > > Date:   Wed Aug 30 15:21:41 2017 -0300
> > > > > 
> > > > >     hw/ppc: CAS reset on early device hotplug
> > > > > 
> > > > > I'll have a look to see what can be done here.
> > > > 
> > > > Ah.. yes, that one might be a bit tricky.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > So far it seems to be related to SLOF not being able to create
> > > new nodes in the DT when parsing the FDT returned by CAS. SLOF
> > > stops the parsing and returns an error. The guest ends up with
> > > a broken DT and eventually hangs later (in my case the kernel
> > > believes it is going to do hash while radix was negotiated with
> > > QEMU). I need to dig some more.
> > 
> > Uh... I don't think this is right.  I'm pretty sure SLOF *does* create
> > new nodes when parsing the CAS FDT, it will need to for
> > "ibm,dynamic-reconfiguration-memory" at least.
> > 
> 
> It can create "memory@" or "ibm,dynamic-reconfiguration-memory" nodes but
> explicitly rejects all others.

Huh.  Well that's certainly not correct now that we're doing a full
tree rebuild.

> > I've done some looking and I think the actual reasons here are a bit
> > more complicated (but also possibly easier to handle).
> > 
> >   1. We can't send hotplug events to the guest until after CAS,
> >      because before then we don't know if it can process them, or if
> >      it can, which interrupt it uses for them.
> > 
> >   2. Queueing hotplug events across CAS for delivery afterwards
> >      introduces other complications
> > 
> >   3. We need to make sure that each device appears exactly once in
> >      either the  initial device tree that the guest OS sees, *or* in a
> >      hotplug event, not both or neither.
> > 
> > Now that we rebuild the DT at CAS time, I think we mightd be able toy
> > handle this by converting such devices to "cold plugged" at CAS time
> > (similarly to what we already do at reset).  Since they're in the
> > CAS-time DT which is what the OS will consume, cold plugged is
> > effectively how the OS will see them.
> > 
> 
> I have tried hacking around to achieve that. Basically calling
> spapr_drc_reset() for all DRCs for which spapr_drc_needed()
> returns true.
> 
> > A remaining problem is that new PCI devices won't get BARs assigned by
> > SLOF in this scenario.  We'll probably get away with it because of the
> > linux,pci-probe-only property, but I don't know we want to rely on
> 
> We currently only expose this property for pseries-4.2 and newer
> machine types... this could be a problem.

Right.  I don't like relying on it even for the newer machines, since
it presumably wouldn't work for FreeBSD or AIX.

> > that.  PCI bridges hotplugged introduce further complications, because
> > they won't get enumerated.

Alexey has done some testing and looks like there are already a bunch
of problems with PCI bridges hotplugged during SLOF execution.

> > 
> > > > > But I agree the other check is more theoretical:
> > > > > 
> > > > >     /* capabilities that have been added since CAS-generated guest 
> > > > > reset.
> > > > >      * if capabilities have since been removed, generate another reset
> > > > >      */
> > > > >     spapr->cas_reboot = !spapr_ovec_subset(ov5_cas_old, 
> > > > > spapr->ov5_cas);
> > > > > 
> > > > > Unless changing kernels or tempering with the kernel command line, I 
> > > > > don't
> > > > > see how some capabilities could change between the two CAS in 
> > > > > practice.
> > > > 
> > > > Well, we want to be robust and it's at least theoretically possible
> > > > that the guest will request different things on subsequent reboots.
> > > 
> > > Yes but in the latter case a full machine reset occurs and
> > 
> > Not necessarily.  A guest could ask for something on one CAS cycle,
> > then reject it on another, without doing a full reboot.  It'd be a
> > pointless thing for the guest to do, but it's possible.
> > 
> 
> Ok, I was asking later on if we want to support the scenario of
> multiple CAS without an intermediate full reboot. I now have the
> answer :)

Well, "want" might be a bit strong.  PAPR allows for the possibility
so we're trying to support it at this stage.  Obviously this could
happen relatively easily with the hotplug-before-CAS cause.

> > > spapr->ov5_cas gets cleared, ie. spapr_ovec_subset() returns
> > > true in the check above no matter what.
> > 
> > Well, also it could happen if the guest rejects something we put in
> > the initial value of ov5_cas (which is populated from spapr->ov5, so
> > it's not entirely empty).
> > 
> 
> AFAICT the initial value of ov5_cas after a full machine reset is
> all zeroes until CAS does:
> 
>     /* full range of negotiated ov5 capabilities */
>     spapr_ovec_intersect(spapr->ov5_cas, spapr->ov5, ov5_guest);
> 
> which is done between:
> 
>     ov5_cas_old = spapr_ovec_clone(spapr->ov5_cas);
> 
> and
> 
>     spapr->cas_reboot = !spapr_ovec_subset(ov5_cas_old, spapr->ov5_cas);
> 
> So I don't quite understand how ov5_cas_old, ie. spapr->ov5_cas at the
> time the guest calls CAS, could have an "initial value not entirely
> empty"... This can only happen if the guest calls CAS several times
> without doing a full reboot in between. My initial thought was to
> refuse this scenario and fail any subsequent CAS attempt made by
> the guest before a full reboot.

Oh, sorry, my mistake.  I say the line:
      spapr->ov5_cas = spapr_ovec_clone(spapr->ov5);

but only now realized that only happens in the qtest case.  Ok, yes,
looks like this could only happen in the case of multiple CAS reboots
in a row.

> 
> > > > However I believe that the original rationale for this check was that
> > > > while we could add things to the device tree for added capabilities,
> > > > we didn't have a way to roll back the changes for removed
> > > > capabilities.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > IIUC this is specifically for "removed capabilities since last
> > > CAS". This can happen if:
> > > 1) we're already processing a CAS reboot or,
> > > 2) a freshly rebooted guest calls CAS twice without being rebooted
> > >    in between.
> > > 
> > > Since a freshly booted or rebooted guest can only trigger a CAS
> > > reboot because of a "hotplug-before-CAS", if we manage to get rid
> > > of this limitation, 1) cannot happen anymore.
> > > 
> > > The linux kernel seems to be only calling 
> > > "ibm,client-architecture-support"
> > > once during early boot so 2) should _never_ happen. Do we care to support
> > > this scenario anyway ?
> > 
> > I think you've missed some things in your reasoning.  But it doesn't
> > really matter because the full dt rebuilt should handle it anyway.  I
> > have a draft patch which removes this cause for CAS reboots.
> > 
> > Still grappling with the hotplug-before-CAS case.
> > 
> 
> Same here actually. I was struggling with SLOF to have it create new nodes
> for hotplugged-before-CAS devices without crashing :-\
> 
> I think I'll wait for your patches to arrive :) Please Cc: me.
> 
> > > > Now that we fully rebuild the device tree at CAS, I think this test
> > > > can probably just go, although there's some double checking to do.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I tend to agree.
> > 
> 



-- 
David Gibson                    | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au  | minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
                                | _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature