Re: [PATCH v2 01/11] xen/manage: keep track of the on-going suspend mode

[Anchal Agarwal]

On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 05:18:08PM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky 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 7/15/20 4:49 PM, Anchal Agarwal wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 11:52:01AM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky 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 7/2/20 2:21 PM, Anchal Agarwal wrote:
> >>> +
> >>> +bool xen_is_xen_suspend(void)
> >>
> >> Weren't you going to call this pv suspend? (And also --- is this suspend
> >> or hibernation? Your commit messages and cover letter talk about fixing
> >> hibernation).
> >>
> >>
> > This is for hibernation is for pvhvm/hvm/pv-on-hvm guests as you may call it.
> > The method is just there to check if "xen suspend" is in progress.
> > I do not see "xen_suspend" differentiating between pv or hvm
> > domain until later in the code hence, I abstracted it to xen_is_xen_suspend.
> 
> 
> I meant "pv suspend" in the sense that this is paravirtual suspend, not
> suspend for paravirtual guests. Just like pv drivers are for both pv and
> hvm guests.
> 
> 
> And then --- should it be pv suspend or pv hibernation?
> 
>
Ok so I think I am lot confused by this question. Here is what this
function for, function xen_is_xen_suspend() just tells us whether 
the guest is in "SHUTDOWN_SUSPEND" state or not. This check is needed
for correct invocation of syscore_ops callbacks registered for guest's
hibernation and for xenbus to invoke respective callbacks[suspend/resume
vs freeze/thaw/restore].
Since "shutting_down" state is defined static and is not directly available
to other parts of the code, the function solves the purpose.

I am having hard time understanding why this should be called pv
suspend/hibernation unless you are suggesting something else?
Am I missing your point here? 
> 
> >>> +{
> >>> +     return suspend_mode == XEN_SUSPEND;
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>
> >> +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.
> > Iâll be happy to discuss it separately.
> 
> 
> I wasn't implying that this *should* work on ARM but rather whether this
> will break ARM somehow (because xen_hvm_domain() is true there).
> 
> 
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 PM
events PM SUSPEND and PM hibernation. Now since we only care about PM
HIBERNATION I may just remove this code and rely on "SHUTDOWN_SUSPEND" state.
However, I may have to fix other patches in the series where this check may
appear and cater it only for x86 right?
> 
> >>
> >> And PVH dom0.
> > That's another good use case to make it work with however, I still
> > think that should be tested/worked upon separately as the feature itself
> > (PVH Dom0) is very new.
> 
> 
> Same question here --- will this break PVH dom0?
> 
I haven't tested it as a part of this series. Is that a blocker here?
> 
Thanks,
Anchal
> -boris
> 
>