From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB9E6C35641 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:22:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85B8220722 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:22:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=citrix.com header.i=@citrix.com header.b="MFoYi+tE" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727933AbgBUJWc (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Feb 2020 04:22:32 -0500 Received: from esa4.hc3370-68.iphmx.com ([216.71.155.144]:43788 "EHLO esa4.hc3370-68.iphmx.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726244AbgBUJWb (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Feb 2020 04:22:31 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=citrix.com; s=securemail; t=1582276950; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=1o0dm0wP/9Dz9LlBZ6U1xeJE27JCYBLNrNyaJmSV7RA=; b=MFoYi+tEl5BCR2wNmd5aWhFrnUXQDbqy9EzmBv+5Ij7a2pw+5LkAKqTj yMl30d4+G1sbV3yQyvVXRX+8QwCBzC31Z+jjtbegpsndmqzOe6rOv7TUG 7nE42Yp91W0NmDeaoZoSdAWJULlCdPmhpfdMAR6T/QYJQlYWArAe/cLCh 0=; Authentication-Results: esa4.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.i=none; spf=None smtp.pra=roger.pau@citrix.com; spf=Pass smtp.mailfrom=roger.pau@citrix.com; spf=None smtp.helo=postmaster@mail.citrix.com Received-SPF: None (esa4.hc3370-68.iphmx.com: no sender authenticity information available from domain of roger.pau@citrix.com) identity=pra; client-ip=162.221.158.21; receiver=esa4.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; envelope-from="roger.pau@citrix.com"; x-sender="roger.pau@citrix.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Pass (esa4.hc3370-68.iphmx.com: domain of roger.pau@citrix.com designates 162.221.158.21 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=162.221.158.21; receiver=esa4.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; envelope-from="roger.pau@citrix.com"; x-sender="roger.pau@citrix.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1"; x-record-text="v=spf1 ip4:209.167.231.154 ip4:178.63.86.133 ip4:195.66.111.40/30 ip4:85.115.9.32/28 ip4:199.102.83.4 ip4:192.28.146.160 ip4:192.28.146.107 ip4:216.52.6.88 ip4:216.52.6.188 ip4:162.221.158.21 ip4:162.221.156.83 ip4:168.245.78.127 ~all" Received-SPF: None (esa4.hc3370-68.iphmx.com: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@mail.citrix.com) identity=helo; client-ip=162.221.158.21; receiver=esa4.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; envelope-from="roger.pau@citrix.com"; x-sender="postmaster@mail.citrix.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible IronPort-SDR: 2naM2fLXRcIEz8ci/DVJT0B1w7DqJ7CFF6pH3dGfAg8IDJnxKdg4pAIVGMLNM76zeD8JWQiYPu aCowGjUBDV4/+Jj8d2GFJ4juB5ltAKhgt2ZeugZnWy0t88xKRc5q2rSJI1SB5tCEG1FWZ5nlZw 0XpRIC+ckYLXsDK6/kM0cf6X8gOnCHMrrpTTVSe0V89LPhDLMpjyrXTuK2k0XFmXbmtzAWf1Tw ayuQD7J/bhQRq21Khs7UiVOkrPP/IlfRq6ASzfvfe513kMpID3AZbDw7cSKFXRHGtJyy5X4TFQ hfE= X-SBRS: 2.7 X-MesageID: 13431188 X-Ironport-Server: esa4.hc3370-68.iphmx.com X-Remote-IP: 162.221.158.21 X-Policy: $RELAYED X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.70,467,1574139600"; d="scan'208";a="13431188" Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 10:22:19 +0100 From: Roger Pau =?utf-8?B?TW9ubsOp?= To: "Durrant, Paul" CC: "Agarwal, Anchal" , "Valentin, Eduardo" , "len.brown@intel.com" , "peterz@infradead.org" , "benh@kernel.crashing.org" , "x86@kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "pavel@ucw.cz" , "hpa@zytor.com" , "tglx@linutronix.de" , "sstabellini@kernel.org" , "fllinden@amaozn.com" , "Kamata, Munehisa" , "mingo@redhat.com" , "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" , "Singh, Balbir" , "axboe@kernel.dk" , "konrad.wilk@oracle.com" , "bp@alien8.de" , "boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com" , "jgross@suse.com" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , "rjw@rjwysocki.net" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "vkuznets@redhat.com" , "davem@davemloft.net" , "Woodhouse, David" Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH v3 06/12] xen-blkfront: add callbacks for PM suspend and hibernation Message-ID: <20200221092219.GU4679@Air-de-Roger> References: <20200217100509.GE4679@Air-de-Roger> <20200217230553.GA8100@dev-dsk-anchalag-2a-9c2d1d96.us-west-2.amazon.com> <20200218091611.GN4679@Air-de-Roger> <20200219180424.GA17584@dev-dsk-anchalag-2a-9c2d1d96.us-west-2.amazon.com> <20200220083904.GI4679@Air-de-Roger> <20200220154507.GO4679@Air-de-Roger> <20200220164839.GR4679@Air-de-Roger> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: X-ClientProxiedBy: AMSPEX02CAS01.citrite.net (10.69.22.112) To AMSPEX02CL01.citrite.net (10.69.22.125) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 05:01:52PM +0000, Durrant, Paul wrote: > > > Hopefully what I said above illustrates why it may not be 100% common. > > > > Yes, that's fine. I don't expect it to be 100% common (as I guess > > that the hooks will have different prototypes), but I expect > > that routines can be shared, and that the approach taken can be the > > same. > > > > For example one necessary difference will be that xenbus initiated > > suspend won't close the PV connection, in case suspension fails. On PM > > suspend you seem to always close the connection beforehand, so you > > will always have to re-negotiate on resume even if suspension failed. > > > > What I'm mostly worried about is the different approach to ring > > draining. Ie: either xenbus is changed to freeze the queues and drain > > the shared rings, or PM uses the already existing logic of not > > flushing the rings an re-issuing in-flight requests on resume. > > > > Yes, that's needs consideration. I don’t think the same semantic can be suitable for both. E.g. in a xen-suspend we need to freeze with as little processing as possible to avoid dirtying RAM late in the migration cycle, and we know that in-flight data can wait. But in a transition to S4 we need to make sure that at least all the in-flight blkif requests get completed, since they probably contain bits of the guest's memory image and that's not going to get saved any other way. Thanks, that makes sense and something along this lines should be added to the commit message IMO. Wondering about S4, shouldn't we expect the queues to already be empty? As any subsystem that wanted to store something to disk should make sure requests have been successfully completed before suspending. Thanks, Roger.