From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
To: Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@nvidia.com>
Cc: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>,
"Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>, <cjia@nvidia.com>,
<kevin.tian@intel.com>, <ziye.yang@intel.com>,
<changpeng.liu@intel.com>, <yi.l.liu@intel.com>,
<mlevitsk@redhat.com>, <eskultet@redhat.com>,
<jonathan.davies@nutanix.com>, <eauger@redhat.com>,
<aik@ozlabs.ru>, <pasic@linux.ibm.com>, <felipe@nutanix.com>,
<Zhengxiao.zx@alibaba-inc.com>, <shuangtai.tst@alibaba-inc.com>,
<Ken.Xue@amd.com>, <zhi.a.wang@intel.com>, <yan.y.zhao@intel.com>,
<qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 Kernel 1/5] vfio: KABI for migration interface for device state
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2020 15:44:28 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200108154428.02bb312d@w520.home> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <46ac2d9e-4f4e-27d5-2a96-932c444e3461@nvidia.com>
On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 02:11:11 +0530
Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@nvidia.com> wrote:
> On 1/9/2020 12:01 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 15:59:55 +0100
> > Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 11:56:02 -0700
> >> Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 23:23:17 +0530
> >>> Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@nvidia.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> There are 3 invalid states:
> >>>> * 101b => Invalid state
> >>>> * 110b => Invalid state
> >>>> * 111b => Invalid state
> >>>>
> >>>> why only 110b should be used to report error from vendor driver to
> >>>> report error? Aren't we adding more confusions in the interface?
> >>>
> >>> I think the only chance of confusion is poor documentation. If we
> >>> define all of the above as invalid and then say any invalid state
> >>> indicates an error condition, then the burden is on the user to
> >>> enumerate all the invalid states. That's not a good idea. Instead we
> >>> could say 101b (_RESUMING|_RUNNING) is reserved, it's not currently
> >>> used but it might be useful some day. Therefore there are no valid
> >>> transitions into or out of this state. A vendor driver should fail a
> >>> write(2) attempting to enter this state.
> >>>
> >>> That leaves 11Xb, where we consider _RESUMING and _SAVING as mutually
> >>> exclusive, so neither are likely to ever be valid states. Logically,
> >>> if the device is in a failed state such that it needs to be reset to be
> >>> recovered, I would hope the device is not running, so !_RUNNING (110b)
> >>> seems appropriate. I'm not sure we need that level of detail yet
> >>> though, so I was actually just assuming both 11Xb states would indicate
> >>> an error state and the undefined _RUNNING bit might differentiate
> >>> something in the future.
> >>>
> >>> Therefore, I think we'd have:
> >>>
> >>> * 101b => Reserved
> >>> * 11Xb => Error
> >>>
> >>> Where the device can only self transition into the Error state on a
> >>> failed device_state transition and the only exit from the Error state
> >>> is via the reset ioctl. The Reserved state is unreachable. The vendor
> >>> driver must error on device_state writes to enter or exit the Error
> >>> state and must error on writes to enter Reserved states. Is that still
> >>> confusing?
> >>
> >> I think one thing we could do is start to tie the meaning more to the
> >> actual state (bit combination) and less to the individual bits. I.e.
> >>
> >> - bit 0 indicates 'running',
> >> - bit 1 indicates 'saving',
> >> - bit 2 indicates 'resuming',
> >> - bits 3-31 are reserved. [Aside: reserved-and-ignored or
> >> reserved-and-must-be-zero?]
> >
> > This version specified them as:
> >
> > Bits 3 - 31 are reserved for future use. User should perform
> > read-modify-write operation on this field.
> >
> > The intention is that the user should not make any assumptions about
> > the state of the reserved bits, but should preserve them when changing
> > known bits. Therefore I think it's ignored but preserved. If we
> > specify them as zero, then I think we lose any chance to define them
> > later.
> >
> >> [Note that I don't specify what happens when a bit is set or unset.]
> >>
> >> States are then defined as:
> >> 000b => stopped state (not saving or resuming)
> >> 001b => running state (not saving or resuming)
> >> 010b => stop-and-copy state
> >> 011b => pre-copy state
> >> 100b => resuming state
> >>
> >> [Transitions between these states defined, as before.]
> >>
> >> 101b => reserved [for post-copy; no transitions defined]
> >> 111b => reserved [state does not make sense; no transitions defined]
> >> 110b => error state [state does not make sense per se, but it does not
> >> indicate running; transitions into this state *are* possible]
> >>
> >> To a 'reserved' state, we can later assign a different meaning (we
> >> could even re-use 111b for a different error state, if needed); while
> >> the error state must always stay the error state.
> >>
> >> We should probably use some kind of feature indication to signify
> >> whether a 'reserved' state actually has a meaning. Also, maybe we also
> >> should designate the states > 111b as 'reserved'.
> >>
> >> Does that make sense?
> >
> > It seems you have an opinion to restrict this particular error state to
> > 110b rather than 11Xb, reserving 111b for some future error condition.
> > That's fine and I think we agree that using the state with _RUNNING set
> > to zero is more logical as we expect the device to be non-operational
> > in this state.
> >
> > I'm also thinking more of these as states, but at the same time we're
> > not doing away with the bit definitions. I think the states are much
> > easier to decode and use if we think about the function of each bit,
> > which leads to the logical incongruity that the 11Xb states are
> > impossible and therefore must be error states.
> >
>
> I agree on bit definition is better.
>
> Ok. Should there be a defined value for error, which can be used by
> vendor driver for error state?
>
> #define VFIO_DEVICE_STATE_ERROR \
> (VFIO_DEVICE_STATE_SAVING | VFIO_DEVICE_STATE_RESUMING)
Seems like a good idea for consistency. Thanks,
Alex
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-08 22:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-12-16 20:21 [PATCH v10 Kernel 0/5] KABIs to support migration for VFIO devices Kirti Wankhede
2019-12-16 20:21 ` [PATCH v10 Kernel 1/5] vfio: KABI for migration interface for device state Kirti Wankhede
2019-12-16 22:44 ` Alex Williamson
2019-12-17 6:28 ` Kirti Wankhede
2019-12-17 7:12 ` Yan Zhao
2019-12-17 18:43 ` Alex Williamson
2019-12-19 16:08 ` Kirti Wankhede
2019-12-19 17:27 ` Alex Williamson
2019-12-19 20:10 ` Kirti Wankhede
2019-12-19 21:09 ` Alex Williamson
2020-01-02 18:25 ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2020-01-06 23:18 ` Alex Williamson
2020-01-07 7:28 ` Kirti Wankhede
2020-01-07 17:09 ` Alex Williamson
2020-01-07 17:53 ` Kirti Wankhede
2020-01-07 18:56 ` Alex Williamson
2020-01-08 14:59 ` Cornelia Huck
2020-01-08 18:31 ` Alex Williamson
2020-01-08 20:41 ` Kirti Wankhede
2020-01-08 22:44 ` Alex Williamson [this message]
2020-01-10 14:21 ` Cornelia Huck
2020-01-07 9:57 ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2020-01-07 16:54 ` Alex Williamson
2020-01-07 17:50 ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2019-12-16 20:21 ` [PATCH v10 Kernel 2/5] vfio iommu: Adds flag to indicate dirty pages tracking capability support Kirti Wankhede
2019-12-16 23:16 ` Alex Williamson
2019-12-17 6:32 ` Kirti Wankhede
2019-12-16 20:21 ` [PATCH v10 Kernel 3/5] vfio iommu: Add ioctl defination for dirty pages tracking Kirti Wankhede
2019-12-16 20:21 ` [PATCH v10 Kernel 4/5] vfio iommu: Implementation of ioctl to " Kirti Wankhede
2019-12-17 5:15 ` Yan Zhao
2019-12-17 9:24 ` Kirti Wankhede
2019-12-17 9:51 ` Yan Zhao
2019-12-17 11:47 ` Kirti Wankhede
2019-12-18 1:04 ` Yan Zhao
2019-12-18 20:05 ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2019-12-19 0:57 ` Yan Zhao
2019-12-19 16:21 ` Kirti Wankhede
2019-12-20 0:58 ` Yan Zhao
2020-01-03 19:44 ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2020-01-04 3:53 ` Yan Zhao
2019-12-18 21:39 ` Alex Williamson
2019-12-19 18:42 ` Kirti Wankhede
2019-12-19 18:56 ` Alex Williamson
2019-12-16 20:21 ` [PATCH v10 Kernel 5/5] vfio iommu: Update UNMAP_DMA ioctl to get dirty bitmap before unmap Kirti Wankhede
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200108154428.02bb312d@w520.home \
--to=alex.williamson@redhat.com \
--cc=Ken.Xue@amd.com \
--cc=Zhengxiao.zx@alibaba-inc.com \
--cc=aik@ozlabs.ru \
--cc=changpeng.liu@intel.com \
--cc=cjia@nvidia.com \
--cc=cohuck@redhat.com \
--cc=dgilbert@redhat.com \
--cc=eauger@redhat.com \
--cc=eskultet@redhat.com \
--cc=felipe@nutanix.com \
--cc=jonathan.davies@nutanix.com \
--cc=kevin.tian@intel.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kwankhede@nvidia.com \
--cc=mlevitsk@redhat.com \
--cc=pasic@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=shuangtai.tst@alibaba-inc.com \
--cc=yan.y.zhao@intel.com \
--cc=yi.l.liu@intel.com \
--cc=zhi.a.wang@intel.com \
--cc=ziye.yang@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).