Re: [PATCH 2/3] block: add logging facility for long standing IO requests

[Denis V. Lunev]

On 8/5/20 4:51 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> On 8/5/20 12:08 PM, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
>> There are severe delays with IO requests processing if QEMU is running in
>> virtual machine or over software defined storage. Such delays potentially
>> results in unpredictable guest behavior. For example, guests over IDE or
>> SATA drive could remount filesystem read-only if write is performed
>> longer than 10 seconds.
>>
>> Such reports are very complex to process. Some good starting point for this
>> seems quite reasonable. This patch provides one. It adds logging of such
>> potentially dangerous long IO operations.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Denis V. Lunev <den@openvz.org>
>> Reviewed-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
>> CC: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
>> CC: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
>> CC: Max Reitz <mreitz@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>  block/accounting.c         | 59 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>  blockdev.c                 |  7 ++++-
>>  include/block/accounting.h |  5 +++-
>>  slirp                      |  2 +-
>>  4 files changed, 69 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
> ...
>
>>  typedef struct BlockAcctCookie {
>> @@ -101,7 +104,7 @@ typedef struct BlockAcctCookie {
>>  
>>  void block_acct_init(BlockAcctStats *stats);
>>  void block_acct_setup(BlockAcctStats *stats, bool account_invalid,
>> -                     bool account_failed);
>> +                      bool account_failed, unsigned 
>> latency_log_threshold_ms);
>>  void block_acct_cleanup(BlockAcctStats *stats);
>>  void block_acct_add_interval(BlockAcctStats *stats, unsigned 
>> interval_length);
>>  BlockAcctTimedStats *block_acct_interval_next(BlockAcctStats *stats,
>> diff --git a/slirp b/slirp
>> index ce94eba204..2faae0f778 160000
>> --- a/slirp
>> +++ b/slirp
>> @@ -1 +1 @@
>> -Subproject commit ce94eba2042d52a0ba3d9e252ebce86715e94275
>> +Subproject commit 2faae0f778f818fadc873308f983289df697eb93
> SLiRP change unrelated I presume...
>
yes :(

subprojects comes into play.. I have not event changed this.
Just a result from pull :((((