On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 06:19:41PM +0200, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
> 
> 
> On 08/03/2023 16:13, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 01:17:33PM +0200, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 06/03/2023 18:25, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 05:28:03PM +0200, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On 06/03/2023 13:20, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 04:00:50PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 在 2023/3/6 08:03, Stefan Hajnoczi 写道:
> > > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 05, 2023 at 04:38:59AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 03:21:33PM -0500, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > What happens if a command takes 1 second to complete, is the device
> > > > > > > > > > allowed to process the next command from the virtqueue during this time,
> > > > > > > > > > possibly completing it before the first command?
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > This requires additional clarification in the spec because "they are
> > > > > > > > > > processed by the device in the order in which they are queued" does not
> > > > > > > > > > explain whether commands block the virtqueue (in order completion) or
> > > > > > > > > > not (out of order completion).
> > > > > > > > > Oh I begin to see. Hmm how does e.g. virtio scsi handle this?
> > > > > > > > virtio-scsi, virtio-blk, and NVMe requests may complete out of order.
> > > > > > > > Several may be processed by the device at the same time.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > They rely on multi-queue for abort operations:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > In virtio-scsi the abort requests (VIRTIO_SCSI_T_TMF_ABORT_TASK) are
> > > > > > > > sent on the control virtqueue. The the request identifier namespace is
> > > > > > > > shared across all virtqueues so it's possible to abort a request that
> > > > > > > > was submitted to any command virtqueue.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > NVMe also follows the same design where abort commands are sent on the
> > > > > > > > Admin Submission Queue instead of an I/O Submission Queue. It's possible
> > > > > > > > to identify NVMe requests by <Submission Queue ID, Command Identifier>.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > virtio-blk doesn't support aborting requests.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I think the logic behind this design is that if a queue gets stuck
> > > > > > > > processing long-running requests, then the device should not be forced
> > > > > > > > to perform lookahead in the queue to find abort commands. A separate
> > > > > > > > control/admin queue is used for the abort requests.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Or device need mandate some kind of QOS here, e.g a request must be complete
> > > > > > > in some time. Otherwise we don't have sufficient reliability for using it as
> > > > > > > management task?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Yes, if all commands can be executed in bounded time then a guarantee is
> > > > > > possible.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Here is an example where that's hard: imagine a virtio-blk device backed
> > > > > > by network storage. When an admin queue command is used to delete a
> > > > > > group member, any of the group member's in-flight I/O requests need to
> > > > > > be aborted. If the network hangs while the group member is being
> > > > > > deleted, then the device can't complete an orderly shutdown of I/O
> > > > > > requests in a reasonable time.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > That example shows a basic group admin command that I think Michael is
> > > > > > about to propose. We can't avoid this problem by not making it a group
> > > > > > admin command - it needs to be a group admin command. So I think it's
> > > > > > likely that there will be admin commands that take an unbounded amount
> > > > > > of time to complete. One way to achieve what you mentioned is timeouts.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I think that you're getting into device specific implementation details and
> > > > > I'm not sure it's necessary.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I don't think we need to abort admin commands. Admin commands can be
> > > > > flushed/aborted during the device reset phase.
> > > > > Only IO commands should have the possibility to being aborted as you
> > > > > mentioned in NVMe and SCSI (and potentially in virtio-blk).
> > > > 
> > > > It's a general design issue that should be clarified now rather than
> > > > being left unspecified.
> > > > 
> > > > I'm not saying that it must be possible to abort admin commands. There
> > > > are other options, like requiring the device itself to fail a command
> > > > after a timeout.
> > > 
> > > do you have an example of timeout today for control vq ?
> > 
> > Do you mean the virtio-net control virtqueue? I don't think it has any
> > commands with an unbounded execution time.
> 
> Correct. So why introducing it now ?

The examples I've given are the create and delete group member
operations. I think those operations will take unbounded time in some
device implementations.

> 
> > 
> > > > 
> > > > Or we could say that admin commands must complete within bounded time,
> > > > but I'm not sure that is implementable for some device types like
> > > > virtio-blk, virtio-scsi, and virtiofs.
> > > 
> > > No we can't.
> > > Some commands, for example FW upgrade can take 10 minutes and it's perfectly
> > > fine. Other commands like setting feature bit will take 1 millisec.
> > > Each device implements commands in a different internal logic so we can't
> > > expect to complete after X time.
> > 
> > When I say bounded time, I mean that it finishes in a finite amount of
> > time. I'm not saying there is a specific time X that all device
> > implementations must satisfy. Unbounded means it might never finish.
> 
> There might be a chance that any command for any virtio device type will
> never finish. Nothing new here in the adminq.
> 
> what one can do is to set a timeout for himself and if this timeout expire -
> check the device status. If it needs_reset - do a reset. if status is ok,
> then wait some more time.
> After X retries, unmap buffers or reset the adminq.

Michael: What effect does resetting the group owner device have on group
member devices?

I'm concerned that this approach disrupts all group member devices. For
example, you try to add a new device but the command hangs. In order to
recover you now have to reset the group owner device and this breaks all
the group member devices.

> > 
> > > Device can go to so FATAL state in case a command is stuck and causing
> > > internal errors in it.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > For your example, stopping a member is possible even it there are some
> > > > > errors in the network. You can for example destroy all the connections to
> > > > > the remote target and complete all the BIOS with some error.
> > > > 
> > > > Forgetting about in-flight requests doesn't necessarily make them go
> > > > away. It creates a race between forgotten requests and reconnection. In
> > > > the worst case a forgotten write request takes effect after
> > > > reconnection, causing data corruption.
> > > 
> > > For making it work without data corruption we need a cooperation of the
> > > target side for sure. But this is fine since the target in that case is part
> > > of the "virtio-blk backend".
> > > One solution is that the target can decide it will flush all the requests to
> > > the storage device before accepting new connections.
> > 
> > This solution shifts the unbounded time from disconnection to
> > connection. The Group Member Delete command will complete quickly but a
> > subsequent Group Member Create command for the same underlying storage
> > device would need to wait until the requests are done.
> > 
> > Therefore I think the admin queue must be designed under the assumption
> > that some commands take a very long time.
> 
> For sure an admin command may take long time. FW upgrade can take 10 minutes
> for example.
> But each device is free to implement internal logic as he choose.
> 
> Same for live migration, when we stop/quiesce a device we must make sure it
> doesn't master any DMA operations. Thus, in some implementations we need to
> wait for all inflights to end fast. In others, we can invalidate the access
> to host/guest memory and wait for completions until the freeze state.
> 
> Bottom line, this is device implementation specific consideration.

What I'm asking is that the spec clarifies the command completion order
semantics (in-order or out-of-order), whether there is a mechanism to
abort commands, etc.

Device implementers can then take advantage of those aspects to
implement devices that don't hang (e.g. health monitoring becomes
unavailable when there is a long running command).

If the spec doesn't cover this, then device implementers will not be
able to work around it when implementing standard commands like
create/delete group member.

Does that make sense?

Stefan