Re: [PATCH v3 0/8] blockdev: avoid acquiring AioContext lock twice at do_drive_backup and do_blockdev_backup

[Sergio Lopez]

Max Reitz <address@hidden> writes:

> On 13.11.19 14:24, Sergio Lopez wrote:
>> 
>> Sergio Lopez <address@hidden> writes:
>> 
>>> address@hidden writes:
>>>
>>>> Patchew URL: https://patchew.org/QEMU/address@hidden/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> This series failed the docker-quick@centos7 build test. Please find the 
>>>> testing commands and
>>>> their output below. If you have Docker installed, you can probably 
>>>> reproduce it
>>>> locally.
>>>>
>>>> === TEST SCRIPT BEGIN ===
>>>> #!/bin/bash
>>>> make docker-image-centos7 V=1 NETWORK=1
>>>> time make docker-test-quick@centos7 SHOW_ENV=1 J=14 NETWORK=1
>>>> === TEST SCRIPT END ===
>>>>
>>>>   TEST    iotest-qcow2: 268
>>>> Failures: 141
>>>
>>> Hm... 141 didn't fail in my test machine. I'm going to have a look.
>> 
>> So here's the output:
>> 
>> --- /root/qemu/tests/qemu-iotests/141.out    2019-11-12 04:43:27.651557587 
>> -0500
>> +++ /root/qemu/build/tests/qemu-iotests/141.out.bad  2019-11-13 
>> 08:12:06.575967337 -0500
>> @@ -10,6 +10,8 @@
>>  Formatting 'TEST_DIR/o.IMGFMT', fmt=IMGFMT size=1048576 
>> backing_file=TEST_DIR/t.IMGFMT backing_fmt=IMGFMT
>>  {"timestamp": {"seconds":  TIMESTAMP, "microseconds":  TIMESTAMP}, "event": 
>> "JOB_STATUS_CHANGE", "data": {"status": "created", "id": "job0"}}
>>  {"timestamp": {"seconds":  TIMESTAMP, "microseconds":  TIMESTAMP}, "event": 
>> "JOB_STATUS_CHANGE", "data": {"status": "running", "id": "job0"}}
>> +{"timestamp": {"seconds":  TIMESTAMP, "microseconds":  TIMESTAMP}, "event": 
>> "JOB_STATUS_CHANGE", "data": {"status": "paused", "id": "job0"}}
>> +{"timestamp": {"seconds":  TIMESTAMP, "microseconds":  TIMESTAMP}, "event": 
>> "JOB_STATUS_CHANGE", "data": {"status": "running", "id": "job0"}}
>>  {"error": {"class": "GenericError", "desc": "Node 'drv0' is busy: node is 
>> used as backing hd of 'NODE_NAME'"}}
>>  {"return": {}}
>>  {"timestamp": {"seconds":  TIMESTAMP, "microseconds":  TIMESTAMP}, "event": 
>> "JOB_STATUS_CHANGE", "data": {"status": "aborting", "id": "job0"}}
>> 
>> Those extra lines, the "paused" and "running", are a result of the job
>> being done in a transaction, within a drained section.
>> 
>> We can update 141.out, but now I'm wondering, was it safe creating the
>> job at do_drive_backup() outside of a drained section, as
>> qmp_drive_backup was doing?
>
> I think it is.  Someone needs to drain the source node before attaching
> the job filter (which intercepts writes), and bdrv_backup_top_append()
> does precisely this.
>
> If the source node is in an I/O thread, you could argue that the drain
> starts later than when the user has invoked the backup command, and so
> some writes might slip through.  That’s correct.  But at the same time,
> it’s impossible to drain it the instant the command is received.  So
> some writes might always slip through (and the drain will not stop them
> either, it will just let them happen).
>
> Therefore, I think it’s fine the way it is.
>
>> Do you think there may be any potential drawbacks as a result of always
>> doing it now inside a drained section?
>
> Well, one drawback is clearly visible.  The job goes to paused for no
> reason.

This is something that already happens when requesting the drive-backup
through a transaction:

{"execute":"transaction","arguments":{"actions":[{"type":"drive-backup","data":{"device":"drv0","target":"o.qcow2","sync":"full","format":"qcow2"}}]}}

I don't think it makes sense to have two different behaviors for the
same action. So we either accept the additional pause+resume iteration
for qmp_drive_backup, or we remove the drained section from the
transaction based one.

What do you think?

Cheers,
Sergio.

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature