qemu-block
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH] nbd-client: avoid spurious qio_channel_yield()


From: Eric Blake
Subject: Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH] nbd-client: avoid spurious qio_channel_yield() re-entry
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 09:51:04 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1

On 08/22/2017 07:51 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> The following scenario leads to an assertion failure in
> qio_channel_yield():
> 
> 1. Request coroutine calls qio_channel_yield() successfully when sending
>    would block on the socket.  It is now yielded.
> 2. nbd_read_reply_entry() calls nbd_recv_coroutines_enter_all() because
>    nbd_receive_reply() failed.
> 3. Request coroutine is entered and returns from qio_channel_yield().
>    Note that the socket fd handler has not fired yet so
>    ioc->write_coroutine is still set.
> 4. Request coroutine attempts to send the request body with nbd_rwv()
>    but the socket would still block.  qio_channel_yield() is called
>    again and assert(!ioc->write_coroutine) is hit.
> 
> The problem is that nbd_read_reply_entry() does not distinguish between
> request coroutines that are waiting to receive a reply and those that
> are not.
> 
> This patch adds a per-request bool receiving flag so
> nbd_read_reply_entry() can avoid spurious aio_wake() calls.
> 
> Reported-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <address@hidden>
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <address@hidden>
> ---
> This should fix the issue that Dave is seeing but I'm concerned that
> there are more problems in nbd-client.c.  We don't have good
> abstractions for writing coroutine socket I/O code.  Something like Go's
> channels would avoid manual low-level coroutine calls.  There is
> currently no way to cancel qio_channel_yield() so requests doing I/O may
> remain in-flight indefinitely and nbd-client.c doesn't join them...

Vladimir has some cleanups that rewrite the NBD coroutines to be more
legible, but it is invasive enough to be 2.11 material.  I think that
for a stop-gap of getting 2.10 out the door, we may be better off
including this patch - but I would still like some positive review from
more than just me.  There's not much time left before I need to send the
-rc4 NBD pull request, though.

-- 
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.           +1-919-301-3266
Virtualization:  qemu.org | libvirt.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]