Re: [PATCH v8 00/31] block layer: split block APIs in global state and I/O

[Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>]

Am 03.03.2022 um 16:15 hat Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito geschrieben:
> Currently, block layer APIs like block.h contain a mix of
> functions that are either running in the main loop and under the
> BQL, or are thread-safe functions and run in iothreads performing I/O.
> The functions running under BQL also take care of modifying the
> block graph, by using drain and/or aio_context_acquire/release.
> This makes it very confusing to understand where each function
> runs, and what assumptions it provided with regards to thread
> safety.
> 
> We call the functions running under BQL "global state (GS) API", and
> distinguish them from the thread-safe "I/O API".
> 
> The aim of this series is to split the relevant block headers in
> global state and I/O sub-headers. The division will be done in
> this way:
> header.h will be split in header-global-state.h, header-io.h and
> header-common.h. The latter will just contain the data structures
> needed by header-global-state and header-io, and common helpers
> that are neither in GS nor in I/O. header.h will remain for
> legacy and to avoid changing all includes in all QEMU c files,
> but will only include the two new headers. No function shall be
> added in header.c .
> Once we split all relevant headers, it will be much easier to see what
> uses the AioContext lock and remove it, which is the overall main
> goal of this and other series that I posted/will post.
> 
> In addition to splitting the relevant headers shown in this series,
> it is also very helpful splitting the function pointers in some
> block structures, to understand what runs under AioContext lock and
> what doesn't. This is what patches 21-27 do.
> 
> Each function in the GS API will have an assertion, checking
> that it is always running under BQL.
> I/O functions are instead thread safe (or so should be), meaning
> that they *can* run under BQL, but also in an iothread in another
> AioContext. Therefore they do not provide any assertion, and
> need to be audited manually to verify the correctness.
> 
> Adding assetions has helped finding 2 bugs already, as shown in
> my series "Migration: fix missing iothread locking".
> 
> Tested this series by running unit tests, qemu-iotests and qtests
> (x86_64).
> Some functions in the GS API are used everywhere but not
> properly tested. Therefore their assertion is never actually run in
> the tests, so despite my very careful auditing, it is not impossible
> to exclude that some will trigger while actually using QEMU.
> 
> Patch 1 introduces qemu_in_main_thread(), the function used in
> all assertions. This had to be introduced otherwise all unit tests
> would fail, since they run in the main loop but use the code in
> stubs/iothread.c
> Patches 2-27 (with the exception of patch 9-10, that are an additional
> assert) are all structured in the same way: first we split the header
> and in the next (or same, if small) patch we add assertions.
> Patch 28-31 take care instead of the block layer permission API,
> fixing some bugs where they are used in I/O functions.
> 
> This serie depends on my previous serie "block layer: permission API
> refactoring in preparation to the API split"
> 
> Based-on: <20220209105452.1694545-1-eesposit@redhat.com>
> 
> Signed-off-by: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com>
> ---
> v8:
> bdrv_get_full_backing_filename to GLOBAL_STATE_CODE
> blk_iostatus_is_enabled in IO_CODE
> blk_iostatus_set_err in IO_CODE
> bdrv_apply_auto_read_only in IO_CODE
> bdrv_can_set_read_only in IO_CODE
> blk_drain to GLOBAL_STATE_CODE

Thanks, fixed up the unintentional changes to bdrv_op_blocker_is_empty()
and bdrv_op_unblock_all() as discussed on IRC, and applied to the block
branch.

Kevin