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=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 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 F3DD0C433DF for ; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 23:01:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BA4D206EB for ; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 23:01:28 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="q/5pcZuF" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 8BA4D206EB Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id D45406B0023; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 19:01:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id CF68E8D0005; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 19:01:27 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id C0DA78D0003; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 19:01:27 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0015.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.15]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB6266B0023 for ; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 19:01:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin07.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B48F9653 for ; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 23:01:27 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77074492614.07.desk79_13119ea26f4b Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin07.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 428F71837866D for ; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 23:01:27 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: desk79_13119ea26f4b X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 11159 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by imf38.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 23:01:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (c-67-164-102-47.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.164.102.47]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7B32A206E3; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 23:01:24 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1595631685; bh=FAvAZJOwoTWDLLRTfCmqnQivo1eUmvdJOjqG0xIYkaM=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=q/5pcZuF7IsG8rh1UHvYGrrH7Jh+Tf57d7iYydxrwUMTz8Zl35U7do9b5eZ1wJ//Y 9AcUlMxUVfMZCPhcXgJektUGvELUibNW/RAqxAXBIwKKz2kte1isEsuZKrxadLYKYN M3t/zzv8LGYzH0r9KPMIp+PfCTNjRwBmKz8pS9Us= Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 16:01:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Stefano Stabellini X-X-Sender: sstabellini@sstabellini-ThinkPad-T480s To: Anchal Agarwal cc: Stefano Stabellini , Boris Ostrovsky , tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org, jgross@suse.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, kamatam@amazon.com, konrad.wilk@oracle.com, roger.pau@citrix.com, axboe@kernel.dk, davem@davemloft.net, rjw@rjwysocki.net, len.brown@intel.com, pavel@ucw.cz, peterz@infradead.org, eduval@amazon.com, sblbir@amazon.com, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, vkuznets@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dwmw@amazon.co.uk, benh@kernel.crashing.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/11] xen/manage: keep track of the on-going suspend mode In-Reply-To: <20200723225745.GB32316@dev-dsk-anchalag-2a-9c2d1d96.us-west-2.amazon.com> Message-ID: References: <50298859-0d0e-6eb0-029b-30df2a4ecd63@oracle.com> <20200715204943.GB17938@dev-dsk-anchalag-2a-9c2d1d96.us-west-2.amazon.com> <0ca3c501-e69a-d2c9-a24c-f83afd4bdb8c@oracle.com> <20200717191009.GA3387@dev-dsk-anchalag-2a-9c2d1d96.us-west-2.amazon.com> <5464f384-d4b4-73f0-d39e-60ba9800d804@oracle.com> <20200721000348.GA19610@dev-dsk-anchalag-2a-9c2d1d96.us-west-2.amazon.com> <408d3ce9-2510-2950-d28d-fdfe8ee41a54@oracle.com> <20200722180229.GA32316@dev-dsk-anchalag-2a-9c2d1d96.us-west-2.amazon.com> <20200723225745.GB32316@dev-dsk-anchalag-2a-9c2d1d96.us-west-2.amazon.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; BOUNDARY="8323329-129397483-1595626299=:17562" Content-ID: X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 428F71837866D X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 100.00] X-Rspamd-Server: rspam01 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --8323329-129397483-1595626299=:17562 Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=UTF-8 Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 23 Jul 2020, Anchal Agarwal wrote: > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 04:49:16PM -0700, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do n= ot click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and = know the content is safe. > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > On Wed, 22 Jul 2020, Anchal Agarwal wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 05:18:34PM -0700, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > > > On Tue, 21 Jul 2020, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > > > > > >>>>>> +static int xen_setup_pm_notifier(void) > > > > > >>>>>> +{ > > > > > >>>>>> + if (!xen_hvm_domain()) > > > > > >>>>>> + return -ENODEV; > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> I forgot --- what did we decide about non-x86 (i.e. ARM)= ? > > > > > >>>>> It would be great to support that however, its out of > > > > > >>>>> scope for this patch set. > > > > > >>>>> I=E2=80=99ll be happy to discuss it separately. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> I wasn't implying that this *should* work on ARM but rathe= r whether this > > > > > >>>> will break ARM somehow (because xen_hvm_domain() is true t= here). > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>> Ok makes sense. TBH, I haven't tested this part of code on = ARM and the series > > > > > >>> was only support x86 guests hibernation. > > > > > >>> Moreover, this notifier is there to distinguish between 2 P= M > > > > > >>> events PM SUSPEND and PM hibernation. Now since we only car= e about PM > > > > > >>> HIBERNATION I may just remove this code and rely on "SHUTDO= WN_SUSPEND" state. > > > > > >>> However, I may have to fix other patches in the series wher= e this check may > > > > > >>> appear and cater it only for x86 right? > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I don't know what would happen if ARM guest tries to handle = hibernation > > > > > >> callbacks. The only ones that you are introducing are in blo= ck and net > > > > > >> fronts and that's arch-independent. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> You do add a bunch of x86-specific code though (syscore ops)= , would > > > > > >> something similar be needed for ARM? > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > I don't expect this to work out of the box on ARM. To start w= ith something > > > > > > similar will be needed for ARM too. > > > > > > We may still want to keep the driver code as-is. > > > > > > > > > > > > I understand the concern here wrt ARM, however, currently the= support is only > > > > > > proposed for x86 guests here and similar work could be carrie= d out for ARM. > > > > > > Also, if regular hibernation works correctly on arm, then all= is needed is to > > > > > > fix Xen side of things. > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure what could be done to achieve any assurances on= arm side as far as > > > > > > this series is concerned. > > > > > > > > Just to clarify: new features don't need to work on ARM or cause = any > > > > addition efforts to you to make them work on ARM. The patch serie= s only > > > > needs not to break existing code paths (on ARM and any other plat= forms). > > > > It should also not make it overly difficult to implement the ARM = side of > > > > things (if there is one) at some point in the future. > > > > > > > > FYI drivers/xen/manage.c is compiled and working on ARM today, ho= wever > > > > Xen suspend/resume is not supported. I don't know for sure if > > > > guest-initiated hibernation works because I have not tested it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are not sure what the effects are (or sure that it won't= work) on > > > > > ARM then I'd add IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86) check, i.e. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86) || !xen_hvm_domain()) > > > > > return -ENODEV; > > > > > > > > That is a good principle to have and thanks for suggesting it. Ho= wever, > > > > in this specific case there is nothing in this patch that doesn't= work > > > > on ARM. From an ARM perspective I think we should enable it and > > > > &xen_pm_notifier_block should be registered. > > > > > > > This question is for Boris, I think you we decided to get rid of th= e notifier > > > in V3 as all we need to check is SHUTDOWN_SUSPEND state which soun= ds plausible > > > to me. So this check may go away. It may still be needed for sycore= _ops > > > callbacks registration. > > > > Given that all guests are HVM guests on ARM, it should work fine = as is. > > > > > > > > > > > > I gave a quick look at the rest of the series and everything look= s fine > > > > to me from an ARM perspective. I cannot imaging that the new free= ze, > > > > thaw, and restore callbacks for net and block are going to cause = any > > > > trouble on ARM. The two main x86-specific functions are > > > > xen_syscore_suspend/resume and they look trivial to implement on = ARM (in > > > > the sense that they are likely going to look exactly the same.) > > > > > > > Yes but for now since things are not tested I will put this > > > !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86) on syscore_ops calls registration part just= to be safe > > > and not break anything. > > > > > > > > One question for Anchal: what's going to happen if you trigger a > > > > hibernation, you have the new callbacks, but you are missing > > > > xen_syscore_suspend/resume? > > > > > > > > Is it any worse than not having the new freeze, thaw and restore > > > > callbacks at all and try to do a hibernation? > > > If callbacks are not there, I don't expect hibernation to work corr= ectly. > > > These callbacks takes care of xen primitives like shared_info_page, > > > grant table, sched clock, runstate time which are important to save= the correct > > > state of the guest and bring it back up. Other patches in the serie= s, adds all > > > the logic to these syscore callbacks. Freeze/thaw/restore are just = there for at driver > > > level. > >=20 > > I meant the other way around :-) Let me rephrase the question. > >=20 > > Do you think that implementing freeze/thaw/restore at the driver leve= l > > without having xen_syscore_suspend/resume can potentially make things > > worse compared to not having freeze/thaw/restore at the driver level = at > > all? > I think in both the cases I don't expect it to work. System may end up = in > different state if you register vs not. Hibernation does not work prope= rly > at least for domU instances without these changes on x86 and I am assum= ing the > same for ARM. >=20 > If you do not register freeze/thaw/restore callbacks for arm, then on > invocation of xenbus_dev_suspend, default suspend/resume callbacks > will be called for each driver and since you do not have any code to sa= ve domU's > xen primitives state (syscore_ops), hibernation will either fail or wil= l demand a reboot. > I do no have setup to test the current state of ARM's hibernation >=20 > If you only register freeze/thaw/restore and no syscore_ops, it will ag= ain fail. > Since, I do not have an ARM setup running, I quickly ran a similar test= on x86, > may not be an apple to apple comparison but instance failed to resume o= r I > should say stuck showing huge jump in time and required a reboot. >=20 > Now if this doesn't happen currently when you trigger hibernation on ar= m domU > instances or if system is still alive when you trigger hibernation in x= en guest > then not registering the callbacks may be a better idea. In that case = may be=20 > I need to put arch specific check when registering freeze/thaw/restore = handlers. >=20 > Hope that answers your question. Yes, it does, thank you. I'd rather not introduce unknown regressions so I would recommend to add an arch-specific check on registering freeze/thaw/restore handlers. Maybe something like the following: #ifdef CONFIG_X86 .freeze =3D blkfront_freeze, .thaw =3D blkfront_restore, .restore =3D blkfront_restore #endif maybe Boris has a better suggestion on how to do it --8323329-129397483-1595626299=:17562--