Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 24 May 2022 09:09:00 +0200
From:   Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
To:     Eugenio Perez Martin <eperezma@redhat.com>
Cc:     Si-Wei Liu <si-wei.liu@oracle.com>,
        virtualization <virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
        kvm list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Longpeng <longpeng2@huawei.com>,
        Zhu Lingshan <lingshan.zhu@intel.com>,
        Martin Petrus Hubertus Habets <martinh@xilinx.com>,
        Harpreet Singh Anand <hanand@xilinx.com>, dinang@xilinx.com,
        Eli Cohen <elic@nvidia.com>,
        Laurent Vivier <lvivier@redhat.com>, pabloc@xilinx.com,
        "Dawar, Gautam" <gautam.dawar@amd.com>,
        Xie Yongji <xieyongji@bytedance.com>, habetsm.xilinx@gmail.com,
        Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>,
        tanuj.kamde@amd.com, Wu Zongyong <wuzongyong@linux.alibaba.com>,
        martinpo@xilinx.com, Cindy Lu <lulu@redhat.com>,
        ecree.xilinx@gmail.com, Parav Pandit <parav@nvidia.com>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>,
        Zhang Min <zhang.min9@zte.com.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] vdpa: Add stop operation
Message-ID: <20220524070900.ak7a5frwtezjhhrq@sgarzare-redhat>
References: <20220520172325.980884-1-eperezma@redhat.com>
 <20220520172325.980884-2-eperezma@redhat.com>
 <79089dc4-07c4-369b-826c-1c6e12edcaff@oracle.com>
 <CAJaqyWd3BqZfmJv+eBYOGRwNz3OhNKjvHPiFOafSjzAnRMA_tQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAJaqyWd3BqZfmJv+eBYOGRwNz3OhNKjvHPiFOafSjzAnRMA_tQ@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 09:20:14PM +0200, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote:
>On Sat, May 21, 2022 at 12:13 PM Si-Wei Liu <si-wei.liu@oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5/20/2022 10:23 AM, Eugenio P?rez wrote:
>> > This operation is optional: It it's not implemented, backend feature bit
>> > will not be exposed.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Eugenio P?rez <eperezma@redhat.com>
>> > ---
>> >   include/linux/vdpa.h | 6 ++++++
>> >   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/include/linux/vdpa.h b/include/linux/vdpa.h
>> > index 15af802d41c4..ddfebc4e1e01 100644
>> > --- a/include/linux/vdpa.h
>> > +++ b/include/linux/vdpa.h
>> > @@ -215,6 +215,11 @@ struct vdpa_map_file {
>> >    * @reset:                  Reset device
>> >    *                          @vdev: vdpa device
>> >    *                          Returns integer: success (0) or error (< 0)
>> > + * @stop:                    Stop or resume the device (optional, but it must
>> > + *                           be implemented if require device stop)
>> > + *                           @vdev: vdpa device
>> > + *                           @stop: stop (true), not stop (false)
>> > + *                           Returns integer: success (0) or error (< 0)
>> Is this uAPI meant to address all use cases described in the full blown
>> _F_STOP virtio spec proposal, such as:
>>
>> --------------%<--------------
>>
>> ...... the device MUST finish any in flight
>> operations after the driver writes STOP.  Depending on the device, it
>> can do it
>> in many ways as long as the driver can recover its normal operation 
>> if it
>> resumes the device without the need of resetting it:
>>
>> - Drain and wait for the completion of all pending requests until a
>>    convenient avail descriptor. Ignore any other posterior descriptor.
>> - Return a device-specific failure for these descriptors, so the driver
>>    can choose to retry or to cancel them.
>> - Mark them as done even if they are not, if the kind of device can
>>    assume to lose them.
>> --------------%<--------------
>>
>
>Right, this is totally underspecified in this series.
>
>I'll expand on it in the next version, but that text proposed to
>virtio-comment was complicated and misleading. I find better to get
>the previous version description. Would the next description work?
>
>```
>After the return of ioctl, the device MUST finish any pending operations like
>in flight requests. It must also preserve all the necessary state (the
>virtqueue vring base plus the possible device specific states) that is required
>for restoring in the future.

For block devices wait for all in-flight requests could take several 
time.

Could this be a problem if the caller gets stuck on this ioctl?

If it could be a problem, maybe we should use an eventfd to signal that 
the device is successfully stopped.

Thanks,
Stefano