[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] [RFC PATCH] qcow2: Fix race in cache invalidation



On 09/25/2014 10:39 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 25.09.2014 um 14:29 hat Alexey Kardashevskiy geschrieben:
>> On 09/25/2014 08:20 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>>> Am 25.09.2014 um 11:55 hat Alexey Kardashevskiy geschrieben:
>>>> Right. Cool. So is below what was suggested? I am doublechecking as it does
>>>> not solve the original issue - the bottomhalf is called first and then
>>>> nbd_trip() crashes in qcow2_co_flush_to_os().
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/block.c b/block.c
>>>> index d06dd51..1e6dfd1 100644
>>>> --- a/block.c
>>>> +++ b/block.c
>>>> @@ -5037,20 +5037,22 @@ void bdrv_invalidate_cache(BlockDriverState *bs,
>>>> Error **errp)
>>>>      if (local_err) {
>>>>          error_propagate(errp, local_err);
>>>>          return;
>>>>      }
>>>>
>>>>      ret = refresh_total_sectors(bs, bs->total_sectors);
>>>>      if (ret < 0) {
>>>>          error_setg_errno(errp, -ret, "Could not refresh total sector count");
>>>>          return;
>>>>      }
>>>> +
>>>> +    bdrv_drain_all();
>>>>  }
>>>
>>> Try moving the bdrv_drain_all() call to the top of the function (at
>>> least it must be called before bs->drv->bdrv_invalidate_cache).
>>
>>
>> Ok, I did. Did not help.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> +static QEMUBH *migration_complete_bh;
>>>> +static void process_incoming_migration_complete(void *opaque);
>>>> +
>>>>  static void process_incoming_migration_co(void *opaque)
>>>>  {
>>>>      QEMUFile *f = opaque;
>>>> -    Error *local_err = NULL;
>>>>      int ret;
>>>>
>>>>      ret = qemu_loadvm_state(f);
>>>>      qemu_fclose(f);
>>>
>>> Paolo suggested to move eveything starting from here, but as far as I
>>> can tell, leaving the next few lines here shouldn't hurt.
>>
>>
>> Ouch. I was looking at wrong qcow2_fclose() all this time :)
>> Aaaany what you suggested did not help -
>> bdrv_co_flush() calls qemu_coroutine_yield() while this BH is being
>> executed and the situation is still the same.
> 
> Hm, do you have a backtrace? The idea with the BH was that it would be
> executed _outside_ coroutine context and therefore wouldn't be able to
> yield. If it's still executed in coroutine context, it would be
> interesting to see who that caller is.

Like this?
process_incoming_migration_complete
bdrv_invalidate_cache_all
bdrv_drain_all
aio_dispatch
node->io_read (which is nbd_read)
nbd_trip
bdrv_co_flush
[...]



-- 
Alexey


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]