Re: [PATCH] pci: Refuse to hotplug PCI Devices when the Guest OS is not ready

[Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>]

On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 14:31:35 +1100
David Gibson <dgibson@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 13:54:26 +0100
> Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 07:26:44 -0400
> > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> >  [...]  
> >  [...]  
> >  [...]  
> > [...]
> >  [...]    
> > > > 
> > > > It certainly shouldn't wait an unbounded time.  But a wait with timeout
> > > > seems worth investigating to me.      
> > racy, timeout is bound to break once it's in overcommited env.  
> 
> Hm.  That's no less true at the management layer than it is at the qemu
> layer.
true, but it's user policy which is defined by user not by QEMU.

> 
> > > If it's helpful, I'd add a query to check state
> > > so management can figure out why doesn't guest see device yet.    
> > that means mgmt would have to poll it and forward it to user
> > somehow.  
> 
> If that even makes sense.  In the case of Kata, it's supposed to be
> autonomously creating the VM, so there's nothing meaningful it can
> forward to the user other than "failed to create the container because
> of some hotplug problem that means nothing to you".
> 
> >  [...]  
> > I have more questions wrt the suggestion/workflow:
> > * at what place would you suggest buffering it?
> > * what would be the request in this case, i.e. create PCI device anyways
> > and try to signal hotplug event later?
> > * what would baremethal do in such case?
> > * what to do in case guest is never ready, what user should do in such case?
> > * can be such device be removed?
> > 
> > not sure that all of this is worth of the effort and added complexity.
> > 
> > alternatively:
> > maybe ports can send QMP events about it's state changes, which end user would
> > be able to see + error like in this patch.
> > 
> > On top of it, mgmt could build a better UIx, like retry/notify logic if
> > that's what user really wishes for and configures (it would be up to user to
> > define behaviour).  
> 
> That kind of makes sense if the user is explicitly requesting hotplugs,
> but that's not necessarily the case.
user doesn't have to be a human, it could be some mgmt layer that would
automate retry logic, depending on what actually user needs for particular task
(i.e. fail immediately, retry N time then fail, retry with time out - then fail,
don't care - succeed, ...). The point is for QEMU to provide means for mgmt to
implement whatever policy user would need.

PS:
but then, I know close to nothing about PCI, so all of above might be nonsense.