On Tue, 27 May 2014 17:57:31 +0200 Anshul Makkar <anshul.mak...@profitbricks.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > I tested the hot unplug patch and doesn't seem to work properly with Debian > 6 and Ubuntu host. > > Scenario: > I added 3 dimm devices of 1G each: > > object_add memory-ram,id=ram0,size=1G, device_add dimm,id=dimm1,memdev=ram0 > > object_add memory-ram,id=ram1,size=1G, device_add dimm,id=dimm2,memdev=ram1 > > object_add memory-ram,id=ram2,size=1G, device_add dimm,id=dimm3,memdev=ram2 > > device_del dimm3: I get the OST EVENT EJECT 0x3 and OST STATUS as 0x84(IN > PROGRESS) If I check on the guest, the device has been successfully > removed. But no OST EJECT SUCCESS event was received. I think there should be a SUCCESS event, it should be investigated from the guest side first, OST support in kernel is relatively new. > > device_del dimm2: I get OST EVENT EJECT 0x3, OST STATUS 0x84 (IN PROGRESS). > Then 2nd time OST EVENT EJECT 0x3, OST STATUS 0x1 (FAILURE) . Device is not > removed from the guest. > > device_del dimm1: I get OST EVENT EJECT 0x3, OST STATUS 0x84 (IN PROGRESS). > Then 2nd OST EVENT EJECT 0x3, OST STATUS 0x1(FAILURE) . Device is not > removed from the guest. You are seeing results of guest removal failure I've discussed with Hu Tao in this thread. > > Thus it mean that if for the first time device removal fails with status > indicating in progress, then one more attempt will be made to remove the > device. If the attempts succeeds then no success OST event will be conveyed > else OST event FAILURE will be sent. Can we be always sure of that > OST_FAILURE event will be sent in case of failure. > > Please can you share your thoughts here. > > Thanks > Anshul Makkar > www.justkernel.com > > > > > On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Vasilis Liaskovitis < > vasilis.liaskovi...@profitbricks.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 09:52:39AM +0800, Hu Tao wrote: > > > On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 05:59:15PM +0200, Vasilis Liaskovitis wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 06:44:42PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 15:25:01 +0800 > > > > > Hu Tao <hu...@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 03:36:58PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > > > > Could you be more specific, what and how doesn't work and why there > > is > > > > > need for SRAT entries per DIMM? > > > > > I've briefly tested with your unplug patches and linux seemed be ok > > with unplug, > > > > > i.e. device node was removed from /sys after receiving remove > > notification. > > > > > > > > Just a heads-up, is this the unplug patch that you are using for > > testing: > > > > > > https://github.com/taohu/qemu/commit/55c9540919e189b0ad2e6a759af742080f8f5dc4 > > > > > > > > or is there a newer version based on Igor's patchseries? > > > > > > Yeah. There is a new version. I pushed it up to > > > https://github.com/taohu/qemu/commits/memhp for you to check out. > > > > cool, thanks. > > > > - Vasilis > > > >
