[pve-devel] [PATCH] Fix error handling if ram hot-plug fail.

Alexandre DERUMIER aderumier at odiso.com
Mon Apr 11 05:26:51 CEST 2016


Here a interesting redhat bugzilla, about udev rules

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1320534

also , according to hotplug documentation
https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/memory-hotplug.txt

It's possible to use "online_movable" insted "online" to enable dimm state.

And if they are enabled in order, like we do,  It should be possible de unplug them in reverse order too.

(The movable zone need to be contiguous, so you can unplug them in random order)





----- Mail original -----
De: "aderumier" <aderumier at odiso.com>
À: "Wolfgang Bumiller" <w.bumiller at proxmox.com>
Cc: "pve-devel" <pve-devel at pve.proxmox.com>
Envoyé: Lundi 11 Avril 2016 05:08:59
Objet: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH] Fix error handling if ram hot-plug fail.

Hi, 
sorry to be late, I was on holiday the 2 last weeks. 

Does memory hot-*un*-plugging work for you? 

Yes, the memory hot-unpluging is working. 

But, the main problem is linux kernel :p 

I need to retreive documentation,but linux kernel currently put some unmovable memory allocations. 
If they are theses allocation on the specific dimm, the linux kernel will refuse the offline them 

here a good powerpoint 
https://events.linuxfoundation.org/sites/events/files/lcjp13_ishimatsu.pdf 

(Note that I don't have checked with last 4.X kernel) 


>> Does it need any 
>>special guest OS? Because the `device_del` qmp command doesn't seem to 
>>have any effect regardless of the `removable` or `online` states in the 
>>guest's /sys/devices/system/memory/memory* files. 

a udev rules should help to put offline state (like for hotplug) 




>>As bug #931 reports that it takes a huge amount of time for memory 
>>unplugging to give up I also wonder why we retry 5 times with a timeout 
>>of 3 seconds per dimm. Can't we just send the device_del commands for 
>>all dimms at once, then wait 3 seconds _once_, then check? Why bother 
>>with so many retries? 
>>Of course the foreach_dimm*() would have to use qemu_dimm_list() instead 
>>of assuming a default layout if eg. a remove command ended up removing 
>>some dimms in between but failing on the last ones, otherwise further 
>>changes will be problematic. 

I don't think you can send device_del on all dimm at the same time. (But I don't have tested it). 
As we don't manage a dimm list in config (we only use memory size to known the memory mapping), 
we need to unplug them in reverse order. 

For the retry and timeout, I had added them because I was helping sometimes. Feel free to remove them. 
until linux have proper fixes for unplug, I don't think we can do better unplug. 




----- Mail original ----- 
De: "Wolfgang Bumiller" <w.bumiller at proxmox.com> 
À: "Wolfgang Link" <w.link at proxmox.com>, "aderumier" <aderumier at odiso.com> 
Cc: "pve-devel" <pve-devel at pve.proxmox.com> 
Envoyé: Jeudi 7 Avril 2016 12:52:58 
Objet: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH] Fix error handling if ram hot-plug fail. 

@Alexandre: pinging you about this, since you added the memory 
hotplug/unplug code: 

Does memory hot-*un*-plugging work for you? Does it need any 
special guest OS? Because the `device_del` qmp command doesn't seem to 
have any effect regardless of the `removable` or `online` states in the 
guest's /sys/devices/system/memory/memory* files. 

As bug #931 reports that it takes a huge amount of time for memory 
unplugging to give up I also wonder why we retry 5 times with a timeout 
of 3 seconds per dimm. Can't we just send the device_del commands for 
all dimms at once, then wait 3 seconds _once_, then check? Why bother 
with so many retries? 
Of course the foreach_dimm*() would have to use qemu_dimm_list() instead 
of assuming a default layout if eg. a remove command ended up removing 
some dimms in between but failing on the last ones, otherwise further 
changes will be problematic. 

On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 10:24:35AM +0200, Wolfgang Link wrote: 
> There is no need to cancel the program if the ram can't remove. 
> The user will see that it is pending. 
> --- 
> PVE/API2/Qemu.pm | 9 ++++++++- 
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) 
> 
> diff --git a/PVE/API2/Qemu.pm b/PVE/API2/Qemu.pm 
> index 0d33f6c..96829c8 100644 
> --- a/PVE/API2/Qemu.pm 
> +++ b/PVE/API2/Qemu.pm 
> @@ -960,7 +960,14 @@ my $update_vm_api = sub { 
> if ($running) { 
> my $errors = {}; 
> PVE::QemuServer::vmconfig_hotplug_pending($vmid, $conf, $storecfg, $modified, $errors); 
> - raise_param_exc($errors) if scalar(keys %$errors); 
> + if (scalar(keys %$errors)) { 
> + foreach my $k (keys %$errors) { 
> + my $msg = $errors->{$k}; 
> + $msg =~ s/\n/ /; 
> + print $msg; 
> + syslog('warning', "$k: $msg"); 
> + } 
> + } 
> } else { 
> PVE::QemuServer::vmconfig_apply_pending($vmid, $conf, $storecfg, $running); 
> } 
> -- 
> 2.1.4 
_______________________________________________ 
pve-devel mailing list 
pve-devel at pve.proxmox.com 
http://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel 


More information about the pve-devel mailing list