[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] [RFC PATCH 0/5] hotplug: fix premature rebinding of VFIO devices to host



Quoting Laine Stump (2017-06-29 13:50:15)
> On 06/28/2017 08:24 PM, Michael Roth wrote:
> > Hi everyone. Hoping to get some feedback on this approach, or some
> > alternatives proposed below, to the following issue:
> > 
> > Currently libvirt immediately attempts to rebind a managed device back to the
> > host driver when it receives a DEVICE_DELETED event from QEMU. This is
> > problematic for 2 reasons:
> > 
> > 1) If multiple devices from a group are attached to a guest, this can move
> >    the group into a "non-viable" state where some devices are assigned to
> >    the host and some to the guest.
> 
> Since we don't support hotplug with managed='yes' of individual (or
> multiple) functions of a multifunction host device, I don't know that
> it's very useful to support hot *un*plug of it - it would only be useful
> if the multi-function device were present in the guest when it was
> started, and then was hot-unplugged later. And this is all a lot of
> extra complexity, though, so it would be useful to know what are the
> scenarios where it would actually be used (i.e. is this a legitimate
> need, or just an interesting exercise?)
> 
> > 
> > 2) When QEMU emits the DEVICE_DELETED event, there's still a "finalize" phase
> >    where additional cleanup occurs. In most cases libvirt can ignore this
> >    cleanup, but in the case of VFIO devices this is where closing of a VFIO
> >    group FD occurs, and failing to wait before rebinding the device to the
> >    host driver can result in unexpected behavior. In the case of powernv
> >    hosts at least, this can lead to a host driver crashing due to the default
> >    DMA windows not having been fully-restored yet. The window between this is
> >    and the initial DEVICE_DELETED seems to be ~6 seconds in practice. We've
> >    seen host dumps with Mellanox CX4 VFs being rebound to host driver during
> >    this period (on powernv hosts).
> 
> I agree with Dan that the situation described here should be considered
> a qemu bug - according to my understanding (from back at the time
> DEVICE_DELETED was added to qemu (I think at libvirt's request) qemu
> should never emit the DEVICE_DELETED event until *everything* related to
> the device is finished - that was the whole point of adding the event in
> the first palce. Covering up this bug with a bunch of extra libvirt
> complexity is just creating the potential for even more bugs in the more
> complex code.
> 
> > 
> > Patches 1-4 address 1) by deferring rebinding of a hostdev to the host driver
> > until all the devices in the group have been detached, at which point all
> > the hostdevs are rebound as a group. Until that point, the devices are traced
> > by the drvManager's inactiveList in a similar manner to hostdevs that are
> > assigned to VFIO via the nodedev-detach interface.
> 
> What happens if libvirtd is restarted during this period? Is the
> inactiveList rebuilt with all the info necessary to assure that the
> nodedev-reattach does/doesn't happen (as appropriate) for all devices?

Hmm, good question.

The Unbindable() check only needs to know that nothing in the activeList
belongs to the group we're checking, and that list at least seems to get
rebuilt appropriately on restart.

But the Unbind() relies on inactiveList and the behavior there is what
nodedev-detach currently does, which is to add it to inactive list while
libvirtd is running, and then just forget about it when libvirtd restarts.
For nodedev-detach it's fine since virHostdevPreparePCIDevices() re-adds
it as needed in the device-attach path. But yah, for this purpose it ends
up losing track of hostdevs that are still pending rebind to the host, and
that means some devices may not get rebound at the appropriate time if
there was a libvirtd restart.

Unlike with device-attach, we can't just re-add it on-demand because we
actually need to know whether or not it was previously in the list. So
I think we'd need to add some persistent state to track this. Will look
into adding handling for that.

> 
> 
> > 
> > Patch 5 addresses 2) by adding an additional check that, when the last device
> > from a group is detached, polls /proc for open FDs referencing the VFIO group
> > path in /dev/vfio/<iommu_group> and waiting for the FD to be closed. If we
> > time out, we abandon rebinding the hostdevs back to the host.
> > 
> > There are a couple alternatives to Patch 5 that might be worth considering:
> > 
> > a) Add a DEVICE_FINALIZED event to QEMU and wait for that instead of
> >    DEVICE_DELETED.
> 
> Is the "device is *almost* completely deleted" event (current
> DEVIE_DELETED) really something that anyone wants/needs to know about?
> Or is the only useful event just the one that you're calling
> DEVICE_FINALIZED? If the latter, then I think it would be better to just
> change when DEVICE_DELETED is emitted.
> 
>  Paired with patches 1-4 this would let us drop patch 5 in
> >    favor of minimal changes to libvirt's event handlers.
> > 
> >    The downsides are:
> >     - that we'd incur some latency for all device-detach calls, but it's not
> >       apparent to me whether this delay is significant for anything outside
> >       of VFIO.
> >     - there may be cases where finalization after DEVICE_DELETE/unparent are
> >       is not guaranteed, and I'm not sure QOM would encourage such
> >       expectations even if that's currently the case.
> > 
> > b) Add a GROUP_DELETED event to VFIO's finalize callback. This is the most
> >    direct solution. With this we could completely separate out the handling
> >    of rebinding to host driver based on receival of this event.
> > 
> >    The downsides are:
> >     - this would only work for newer versions of QEMU, though we could use
> >       the poll-wait in patch 5 as a fallback.
> 
> I don't think we should add such a complex patch as a fallback to
> support older versions of qemu that don't have the bug fixed. Instead,
> just tell people to upgrade qemu (after all, they're going to need to
> update *something* (either libvirt or qemu); no need to update libvirt
> just in order to avoid updating qemu).

Ok, makes sense.

Thanks!

> 
> 
> >     - synchronizing sync/async device-detach threads with sync/async
> >       handlers for this would be a bit hairy, but I have a WIP in progress
> >       that seems *fairly reasonable*
> > 
> > c) Take the approach in Patch 5, either as a precursor to implementing b) or
> >    something else, or just sticking with that for now.
> > 
> > d) ???
> > 
> > Personally I'm leaning toward c), but I'm wondering if that's "good enough"
> > for now, or if we should pursue something more robust from the start, or
> > perhaps something else entirely?
> > 
> > Any feedback is greatly appreciated!
> > 
> >  src/libvirt_private.syms |   5 ++
> >  src/qemu/qemu_hostdev.c  |  16 +++++
> >  src/qemu/qemu_hostdev.h  |   4 ++
> >  src/qemu/qemu_hotplug.c  |  56 ++++++++++++++----
> >  src/util/virfile.c       |  52 +++++++++++++++++
> >  src/util/virfile.h       |   1 +
> >  src/util/virhostdev.c    | 173 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> >  src/util/virhostdev.h    |  16 +++++
> >  src/util/virpci.c        |  69 ++++++++++++++++++----
> >  src/util/virpci.h        |   4 ++
> >  10 files changed, 360 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
> > 
> > 
> 



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]