Re: [PATCH 06/12] xen-blkfront: add callbacks for PM suspend and hibernation]

[Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 09:49:25PM +0000, Anchal Agarwal wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 09:05:48AM +0200, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not 
> > click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know 
> > the content is safe.
> > On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 11:33:52PM +0000, Agarwal, Anchal wrote:
> > >  CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not 
> > > click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and 
> > > know the content is safe.
> > >     > +             xenbus_dev_error(dev, err, "Freezing timed out;"
> > >     > +                              "the device may become inconsistent 
> > > state");
> > >
> > >     Leaving the device in this state is quite bad, as it's in a closed
> > >     state and with the queues frozen. You should make an attempt to
> > >     restore things to a working state.
> > >
> > > You mean if backend closed after timeout? Is there a way to know that? I 
> > > understand it's not good to
> > > leave it in this state however, I am still trying to find if there is a 
> > > good way to know if backend is still connected after timeout.
> > > Hence the message " the device may become inconsistent state".  I didn't 
> > > see a timeout not even once on my end so that's why
> > > I may be looking for an alternate perspective here. may be need to thaw 
> > > everything back intentionally is one thing I could think of.
> > 
> > You can manually force this state, and then check that it will behave
> > correctly. I would expect that on a failure to disconnect from the
> > backend you should switch the frontend to the 'Init' state in order to
> > try to reconnect to the backend when possible.
> > 
> From what I understand forcing manually is, failing the freeze without
> disconnect and try to revive the connection by unfreezing the
> queues->reconnecting to backend [which never got diconnected]. May be even
> tearing down things manually because I am not sure what state will frontend
> see if backend fails to to disconnect at any point in time. I assumed 
> connected.
> Then again if its "CONNECTED" I may not need to tear down everything and start
> from Initialising state because that may not work.
> 
> So I am not so sure about backend's state so much, lets say if  
> xen_blkif_disconnect fail,
> I don't see it getting handled in the backend then what will be backend's 
> state?
> Will it still switch xenbus state to 'Closed'? If not what will frontend see, 
> if it tries to read backend's state through xenbus_read_driver_state ?
> 
> So the flow be like:
> Front end marks XenbusStateClosing
> Backend marks its state as XenbusStateClosing
>     Frontend marks XenbusStateClosed
>     Backend disconnects calls xen_blkif_disconnect
>        Backend fails to disconnect, the above function returns EBUSY
>        What will be state of backend here?

Backend should stay in state 'Closing' then, until it can finish
tearing down.

>        Frontend did not tear down the rings if backend does not switches the
>        state to 'Closed' in case of failure.
> 
> If backend stays in CONNECTED state, then even if we mark it Initialised in 
> frontend, backend

Backend will stay in state 'Closing' I think.

> won't be calling connect(). {From reading code in frontend_changed}
> IMU, Initialising will fail since backend dev->state != XenbusStateClosed plus
> we did not tear down anything so calling talk_to_blkback may not be needed
> 
> Does that sound correct?

I think switching to the initial state in order to try to attempt a
reconnection would be our best bet here.

Thanks, Roger.