Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH 3/3] block: remove legacy I/O throttling

[Manos Pitsidianakis]

On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 11:07:24AM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 04:49:07PM +0300, Manos Pitsidianakis wrote:
> > diff --git a/block.c b/block.c
> > index 9ebdba28b0..c6aad25286 100644
> > --- a/block.c
> > +++ b/block.c
> > @@ -1975,6 +1975,7 @@ BdrvChild *bdrv_root_attach_child(BlockDriverState 
> > *child_bs,
> >      child = g_new(BdrvChild, 1);
> >      *child = (BdrvChild) {
> >          .bs             = NULL,
> > +        .parent_bs      = NULL,
> >          .name           = g_strdup(child_name),
> >          .role           = child_role,
> >          .perm           = perm,
> > @@ -2009,6 +2010,7 @@ BdrvChild *bdrv_attach_child(BlockDriverState *parent_bs,
> >      if (child == NULL) {
> >          return NULL;
> >      }
> > +    child->parent_bs = parent_bs;
> >
> >      QLIST_INSERT_HEAD(&parent_bs->children, child, next);
> >      return child;
> > @@ -3729,6 +3731,12 @@ const char *bdrv_get_parent_name(const BlockDriverState 
> > *bs)
> >                  return name;
> >              }
> >          }
> > +        if (c->parent_bs && c->parent_bs->implicit) {
> > +            name = bdrv_get_parent_name(c->parent_bs);
> > +            if (name && *name) {
> > +                return name;
> > +            }
> > +        }
> >      }
> >
> >      return NULL;
>
> This should be a separate patch.
>
> Who updates parent_bs if the parent is changed (e.g.
> bdrv_replace_node())?
>
> We already have bs->parents.  Why is BdrvChild->parent_bs needed?

If I haven't misunderstood this, BdrvChild holds only the child part of 
the parent-child relationship and there's no way to access a parent from 
bs->parents. bdrv_replace_node() will thus only replace the child part 
in BdrvChild from the aspect of the parent. In the old child bs's 
perspective, one of the nodes of bs->parents is removed and in the new 
child bs's perspective a new node in bs->parents was inserted. parent_bs 
thus remains immutable.

child->parent_bs is needed in this patch because in jobs if a job-ID is 
not specified the parent name is used, but this fails if the parent is 
an implicit node instead of BlockBackend and causes a regression 
(certain job setups suddenly need an explicit job ID instead of just 
working).

> > -void blk_io_limits_disable(BlockBackend *blk)
> > +void blk_io_limits_disable(BlockBackend *blk, Error **errp)
> >  {
> > -    assert(blk->public.throttle_group_member.throttle_state);
> > -    bdrv_drained_begin(blk_bs(blk));
>
> Is it safe to drop drained_begin?  We must ensure that no I/O requests
> run during this function.

Thanks, I will put it back in.

> > -    throttle_group_unregister_tgm(&blk->public.throttle_group_member);
> > -    bdrv_drained_end(blk_bs(blk));
> > +    BlockDriverState *bs, *throttle_node;
> > +
> > +    throttle_node = blk_get_public(blk)->throttle_node;
>
> Is blk_get_public() still necessary?  Perhaps we can do away with the
> concept of the public struct now.  It doesn't need to be done in this
> patch though.

I can include a patch to move throttle_node to BlockBackend and remove 
all BlockBackendPublic code, is that okay?

> > +
> > +    assert(throttle_node && throttle_node->refcnt == 1);
>
> Are you sure the throttle_node->refcnt == 1 assertion holds?  For
> example, does the built-in NBD server have a reference to the throttle
> node if nbd-server-add is called after throttling has been enabled?
>
> Since we have the blk->throttle_node pointer we know we're the owner.
> Others may be using the node too but we may choose to remove it at any
> time.

Hm.. If that's possible I guess we want the removal to be visible to the 
nbd server too. I will use bdrv_replace_node() instead.

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature