From: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> To: Daniel Henrique Barboza <danielhb413@gmail.com> Cc: qemu-ppc@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, groug@kaod.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] spapr.c: always pulse guest IRQ in spapr_core_unplug_request() Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 13:37:11 +1100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <YGUx1+bNSR2IFFSV@yekko.fritz.box> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20210401000437.131140-3-danielhb413@gmail.com> [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2845 bytes --] On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 09:04:37PM -0300, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote: > Commit 47c8c915b162 fixed a problem where multiple spapr_drc_detach() > requests were breaking QEMU. The solution was to just spapr_drc_detach() > once, and use spapr_drc_unplug_requested() to filter whether we already > detached it or not. The commit also tied the hotplug request to the > guest in the same condition. > > Turns out that there is a reliable way for a CPU hotunplug to fail. If a > guest with one CPU hotplugs a CPU1, then offline CPU0s via 'echo 0 > > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/online', then attempts to hotunplug CPU1, > the kernel will refuse it because it's the last online CPU of the > system. Given that we're pulsing the IRQ only in the first try, in a > failed attempt, all other CPU1 hotunplug attempts will fail, regardless > of the online state of CPU1 in the kernel, because we're simply not > letting the guest know that we want to hotunplug the device. > > Let's move spapr_hotplug_req_remove_by_index() back out of the "if > (!spapr_drc_unplug_requested(drc))" conditional, allowing for multiple > 'device_del' requests to the same CPU core to reach the guest, in case > the CPU core didn't fully hotunplugged previously. > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Henrique Barboza <danielhb413@gmail.com> I've applied these to ppc-for-6.0, but.. > --- > hw/ppc/spapr.c | 11 ++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr.c b/hw/ppc/spapr.c > index 05a765fab4..e4be00b732 100644 > --- a/hw/ppc/spapr.c > +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr.c > @@ -3777,8 +3777,17 @@ void spapr_core_unplug_request(HotplugHandler *hotplug_dev, DeviceState *dev, > > if (!spapr_drc_unplug_requested(drc)) { > spapr_drc_unplug_request(drc); > - spapr_hotplug_req_remove_by_index(drc); > } > + > + /* > + * spapr_hotplug_req_remove_by_index is left unguarded, out of the > + * "!spapr_drc_unplug_requested" check, to allow for multiple IRQ > + * pulses removing the same CPU. Otherwise, in an failed hotunplug > + * attempt (e.g. the kernel will refuse to remove the last online > + * CPU), we will never attempt it again because unplug_requested > + * will still be 'true' in that case. > + */ > + spapr_hotplug_req_remove_by_index(drc); I think we need similar changes for all the other unplug types (LMB, PCI, PHB) - basically retries should always be allowed, and at worst be a no-op, rather than generating an error like they do now. > } > > int spapr_core_dt_populate(SpaprDrc *drc, SpaprMachineState *spapr, -- 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 [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-01 3:06 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-04-01 0:04 [PATCH 0/2] pSeries: revert CPU unplug timeout Daniel Henrique Barboza 2021-04-01 0:04 ` [PATCH 1/2] spapr: rollback 'unplug timeout' for CPU hotunplugs Daniel Henrique Barboza 2021-04-01 0:04 ` [PATCH 2/2] spapr.c: always pulse guest IRQ in spapr_core_unplug_request() Daniel Henrique Barboza 2021-04-01 2:37 ` David Gibson [this message] 2021-04-12 19:27 ` Daniel Henrique Barboza 2021-04-20 1:24 ` David Gibson
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=YGUx1+bNSR2IFFSV@yekko.fritz.box \ --to=david@gibson.dropbear.id.au \ --cc=danielhb413@gmail.com \ --cc=groug@kaod.org \ --cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \ --cc=qemu-ppc@nongnu.org \ --subject='Re: [PATCH 2/2] spapr.c: always pulse guest IRQ in spapr_core_unplug_request()' \ /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
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).