Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] blk: postpone request execution on a context protected with "drained section"

[Denis Plotnikov]

ping ping

On 14.12.2018 14:54, Denis Plotnikov wrote:
> 
> 
> On 13.12.2018 15:20, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> Am 13.12.2018 um 12:07 hat Denis Plotnikov geschrieben:
>>> On 12.12.2018 15:24, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>>>> Am 11.12.2018 um 17:55 hat Denis Plotnikov geschrieben:
>>>>>> Why involve the AioContext at all? This could all be kept at the
>>>>>> BlockBackend level without extending the layering violation that
>>>>>> aio_disable_external() is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BlockBackends get notified when their root node is drained, so 
>>>>>> hooking
>>>>>> things up there should be as easy, if not even easier than in
>>>>>> AioContext.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just want to make sure that I understood correctly what you meant by
>>>>> "BlockBackends get notified". Did you mean that bdrv_drain_end calls
>>>>> child's role callback blk_root_drained_end by calling
>>>>> bdrv_parent_drained_end?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, blk_root_drained_begin/end calls are all you need. Specifically,
>>>> their adjustments to blk->quiesce_counter that are already there, 
>>>> and in
>>>> the 'if (--blk->quiesce_counter == 0)' block of blk_root_drained_end()
>>>> we can resume the queued requests.
>>> Sounds it should be so, but it doesn't work that way and that's why:
>>> when doing mirror we may resume postponed coroutines too early when the
>>> underlying bs is protected from writing at and thus we encounter the
>>> assert on a write request execution at bdrv_co_write_req_prepare when
>>> resuming the postponed coroutines.
>>>
>>> The thing is that the bs is protected for writing before execution of
>>> bdrv_replace_node at mirror_exit_common and bdrv_replace_node calls
>>> bdrv_replace_child_noperm which, in turn, calls child->role->drained_end
>>> where one of the callbacks is blk_root_drained_end which check
>>> if(--blk->quiesce_counter == 0) and runs the postponed requests
>>> (coroutines) if the coundition is true.
>>
>> Hm, so something is messed up with the drain sections in the mirror
>> driver. We have:
>>
>>      bdrv_drained_begin(target_bs);
>>      bdrv_replace_node(to_replace, target_bs, &local_err);
>>      bdrv_drained_end(target_bs);
>>
>> Obviously, the intention was to keep the BlockBackend drained during
>> bdrv_replace_node(). So how could blk->quiesce_counter ever get to 0
>> inside bdrv_replace_node() when target_bs is drained?
>>
>> Looking at bdrv_replace_child_noperm(), it seems that the function has
>> a bug: Even if old_bs and new_bs are both drained, the quiesce_counter
>> for the parent reaches 0 for a moment because we call .drained_end for
>> the old child first and .drained_begin for the new one later.
>>
>> So it seems the fix would be to reverse the order and first call
>> .drained_begin for the new child and then .drained_end for the old
>> child. Sounds like a good new testcase for tests/test-bdrv-drain.c, too.
> Yes, it's true, but it's not enough...
> In mirror_exit_common() we actively manipulate with block driver states.
> When we replaced a node in the snippet you showed we can't allow the 
> postponed coroutines to run because the block tree isn't ready to 
> receive the requests yet.
> To be ready, we need to insert a proper block driver state to the block 
> backend which is done here
> 
>      blk_remove_bs(bjob->blk);
>      blk_set_perm(bjob->blk, 0, BLK_PERM_ALL, &error_abort);
>      blk_insert_bs(bjob->blk, mirror_top_bs, &error_abort); << << << <<
> 
>      bs_opaque->job = NULL;
> 
>      bdrv_drained_end(src);
> 
> If the tree isn't ready and we resume the coroutines, we'll end up with 
> the request landed in a wrong block driver state.
> 
> So, we explicitly should stop all activities on all the driver states
> and its parents and allow the activities when everything is ready to go.
> 
> Why explicitly, because the block driver states may belong to different 
> block backends at the moment of the manipulation beginning.
> 
> So, it seems we need to disable all their contexts until the 
> manipulation ends.
> 
> Please, correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
>>
>>> In seems that if the external requests disabled on the context we can't
>>> rely on anything or should check where the underlying bs and its
>>> underlying nodes are ready to receive requests which sounds quite
>>> complicated.
>>> Please correct me if still don't understand something in that routine.
>>
>> I think the reason why reyling on aio_disable_external() works is simply
>> because src is also drained, which keeps external events in the
>> AioContext disabled despite the bug in draining the target node.
>>
>> The bug would become apparent even with aio_disable_external() if we
>> didn't drain src, or even if we just supported src and target being in
>> different AioContexts.
> 
> Why don't we disable all those contexts involved until the end of the 
> block device tree reconstruction?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Denis
>>
>> Kevin
>>
> 

-- 
Best,
Denis