-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.2k
fix: asyncio not saving interrupt state #5568
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
pkit
wants to merge
1
commit into
firecracker-microvm:main
Choose a base branch
from
pkit:save_virtio_irq
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ok, so the problem seems to be that prepare_kick() returns
falsebecause of suppressed notifications from the side of the guest and then we somehow miss the chance to notify the guest.If that is the case, then snapshot or no snapshot
prepare_kick()should eventually return true and we should send the interrupt, which means that there's a problem in the way we save the state of the queue. If that's the case, let's fix that (instead of sending an unsolicited interrupt).There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't think
prepare_kick()will eventually returntrue.No new I/O is coming, guest kernel is in HLT state waiting for interrupt (I did a thread dump when it froze)
So it looks like a deadlock to me, thus just interrupting it solves the problem.
We can probably track
num_addedat the time ofprepare_saveor do not callprepare_kickat the time of theprepare_saveat all.But I'm not sure it's a better solution.
What do you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Well, it should, right? Although, indirectly. The fact that we don't send the interrupt shouldn't matter because the guest is not expecting it (unless there's a bug in
prepare_kick()). So, the guest should see the descriptor we just added (even without the interrupt) and should continue adding more descriptors, so eventually we would callprepare_kick()and it would returntrueThe thing that is perplexing to me is that I can't understand why your solution fixes the issue. You are injecting an interrupt in the guest while we're taking a snapshot, but we're saving KVM state before we save device state. This means that the guest should never see this interrupt 😝
What I am afraid is that us sending the interrupt while taking the snapshot simply changes the ordering of things and hides the problem rather than actually fixing it.
Not saying that this is definitely the case, but I'm still looking into it. I want to make sure that we fix this properly.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, this bug is all about race condition as adding simple debug prints reduces reproduction rate significantly. So I agree that it looks fishy.