Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC v2 15/22] monitor: send event when request queue full

[Stefan Hajnoczi]

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 04:11:58PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 01:56:20PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 11:38:37AM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > Set maximum QMP request queue length to 8.  If queue full, instead of
> > > queue the command, we directly return a "request-dropped" event, telling
> > > client that specific command is dropped.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <address@hidden>
> > > ---
> > >  monitor.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> > >  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/monitor.c b/monitor.c
> > > index 1e9a6cb6a5..d9bed31248 100644
> > > --- a/monitor.c
> > > +++ b/monitor.c
> > > @@ -3971,6 +3971,8 @@ static void monitor_qmp_bh_dispatcher(void *data)
> > >      }
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > +#define  QMP_ASYNC_QUEUE_LEN_MAX  (8)
> > 
> > Why 8?
> 
> I proposed this in previous discussion and no one objected, so I just
> used it. It's here:
> 
>   https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2017-09/msg03989.html
>   (please don't go over the thread; I'll copy the related paragraphs)
> 
> """
>   ...
>   Regarding to queue size: I am afraid max_size=1 may not suffice?
>   Otherwise a simple batch of:
> 
>   {"execute": "query-status"} {"execute": "query-status"}
> 
>   Will trigger the failure.  But I definitely agree it should not be
>   something very large.  The total memory will be this:
> 
>     json limit * queue length limit * monitor count limit
>         (X)            (Y)                    (Z)
> 
>   Now we have (X) already (in form of a few tunables for JSON token
>   counts, etc.), we don't have (Z), and we definitely need (Y).
> 
>   How about we add limits on Y=16 and Z=8?
> 
>   We can do some math if we want some more exact number though.
>   ...
> """
> 
> Oops, I proposed "16", but I used "8"; I hope 8 is good enough, but I
> am definitely not sure whether "1" is good.

I understand the concern about breaking existing clients but choosing an
arbitrary magic number isn't a correct solution to that problem because
existing clients may exceed the magic number!

Instead I think QMP should only look ahead if the out-of-band feature
has been negotatiated.  This way existing clients continue to work.  New
clients will have to avoid sending a batch of requests or they must
handle the queue size limit error.

> For the naming: how about QMP_REQ_QUEUE_LEN_MAX?

Yes.

Stefan