From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59F35C3ABBC for ; Mon, 12 May 2025 10:32:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1uEQRq-00017g-Su; Mon, 12 May 2025 06:31:50 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1uEQRn-000163-Dr for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 12 May 2025 06:31:47 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1uEQRk-0005oy-Lr for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 12 May 2025 06:31:47 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1747045902; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=dVLrg0Pevp5dy3bD+oKL+p/ECpX9z6/EfHD2qL6hzNg=; b=A4OSD/j0nDgpqN4KUwkG3GCx88dr071VCn1jRgRUuO13bgZImWCmBZGOQGKIfC6ifojtQ9 UmxpI08lczYjacer6vAQiiS+7nBoZkXAvrnYwtP53DicZNW7Xx2UPJjcqQ5K7H3w9yDYgX XYCgUmZU0KKPH4LCYAsL0/Rshs0oPcY= Received: from mx-prod-mc-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-35-165-154-97.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [35.165.154.97]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-634-2yYs-Sf-PFGPvP2J7qLAug-1; Mon, 12 May 2025 06:31:39 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 2yYs-Sf-PFGPvP2J7qLAug-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: 2yYs-Sf-PFGPvP2J7qLAug_1747045896 Received: from mx-prod-int-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.12]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 169E0180035C; Mon, 12 May 2025 10:31:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from blackfin.pond.sub.org (unknown [10.45.242.27]) by mx-prod-int-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE36219560AA; Mon, 12 May 2025 10:31:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by blackfin.pond.sub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2EEB221E66E3; Mon, 12 May 2025 12:31:29 +0200 (CEST) From: Markus Armbruster To: Michael Tokarev Cc: zoudongjie , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, stefanha@redhat.com, kwolf@redhat.com, fam@euphon.net, hreitz@redhat.com, alex.chen@huawei.com, chenjianfei3@huawei.com, eric.fangyi@huawei.com, luolongmin@huawei.com, mujinsheng@huawei.com, qemu-block@nongnu.org, qemu-stable@nongnu.org, renxuming@huawei.com, suxiaodong1@huawei.com, wangjian161@huawei.com, wangyan122@huawei.com, yebiaoxiang@huawei.com, zhuyangyang14@huawei.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] qapi/throttle: Fix qmp_block_set_io_throttle blocked for too long In-Reply-To: <47048276-0ef3-4c90-8969-6e58af644fc4@tls.msk.ru> (Michael Tokarev's message of "Mon, 12 May 2025 12:40:38 +0300") References: <20250326092634.1691355-1-zoudongjie@huawei.com> <47048276-0ef3-4c90-8969-6e58af644fc4@tls.msk.ru> Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 12:31:29 +0200 Message-ID: <87wmamqfwe.fsf@pond.sub.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.0 on 10.30.177.12 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.133.124; envelope-from=armbru@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -46 X-Spam_score: -4.7 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.7 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1.587, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Michael Tokarev writes: > On 26.03.2025 12:26, zoudongjie via wrote: >> From: Zhu Yangyang >> Calling qmp_block_set_io_throttle() will be blocked for a long time >> when a network disk is configured and the network failure is just about >> to occur. >> This series add a timeout parameter for qmp_block_set_io_throttle to control >> its execution duration. >> Changelog >> v3 --- >> Unify AIO_WAIT_WHILE_{TIMEOUT/INTERNAL} by replacing AIO_WAIT_WHILE_INTERNAL() with >> AIO_WAIT_WHILE_TIMEOUT(..., 0). >> v2 ---- >> 1. Support 0 in BDRV_POLL_WHILE_TIMEOUT(), 0 means infinite. >> 2. Use uint64_t timeout_ns instead of int64 timeout to name variables. >> 3. Use timer_pending() to check for expiry instead of explicitly checking >> against the deadline for BDRV_POLL_WHILE_TIMEOUT(). >> 4. Add documentation for bdrv_drained_begin_timeout(), note that bdrv_drained_end() >> must be called when -ETIMEDOUT is returned. >> 5. Add a timeout parameter to the qmp_block_set_io_throttle() instead of hardcoding >> the timeout, and the default value is 0, mean an infinite timeout. >> v1 patch link: >> https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/20250308101618.721954-1-zoudongjie@huawei.com/ >> Zhu Yangyang (2): >> io/block: Refactoring the bdrv_drained_begin() function and implement >> a timeout mechanism. >> qapi/throttle: add timeout parameter for qmp_block_set_io_throttle() > > Hi! > > Is this series still relevant? It's Cc'ed qemu-stable@, but not yet > applied to master branch.. I understand Zoudongjie intends to respin. Issues I pointed out: * Incorrect Since: tag * Confusing error message * What other commands could similarly block? The last one should be investigated, but that need not block the patch. A partial fix can be better than no fix.