public inbox for kvm@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
To: "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@redhat.com>
Cc: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, Chris Wright <chrisw@redhat.com>,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: KVM call agenda for Apr 27
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 17:10:15 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100427141015.GA22154@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100427133817.GJ3681@redhat.com>

On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 02:38:17PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 04:15:54PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 02:11:46PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 08:03:42AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > > > On 04/27/2010 03:14 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > > > >On 04/27/2010 01:36 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>A few comments:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>1) The problem was not block watermark itself but generating a 
> > > > >>notification on the watermark threshold.  It's a heuristic and should 
> > > > >>be implemented based on polling block stats. 
> > > > >
> > > > >Polling for an event that never happens is bad engineering.  What 
> > > > >frequency do you poll?  you're forcing the user to make a lose-lose 
> > > > >tradeoff.
> > > > >
> > > > >>Otherwise, we'll be adding tons of events to qemu that we'll struggle 
> > > > >>to maintain.
> > > > >
> > > > >That's not a valid reason to reject a user requirement.  We may argue 
> > > > >the requirement is bogus, or that the suggested implementation is 
> > > > >wrong and point in a different direction, but saying that we may have 
> > > > >to add more code in the future due to other requirements is ... well I 
> > > > >can't find a word for it.
> > > > 
> > > > Polling is the best solution because it offers the most flexibility.  
> > > > Baking the heuristic into qemu just removes flexibility for all consumers.
> > > 
> > > Polling as the added advantage that you can recover better if the
> > > app talking to QMP is offline for a period. eg if libvirt were 
> > > disconnected from QMP at the time the high watermark event were
> > > triggered, the next you'll know is a ENOSPACE event. If the app
> > > were able to poll on the allocation value, then it could immediately
> > > see the watermark had been passed the first time it polled after
> > > libvirt reconnected to QMP. As you say its also more flexible because
> > > you can invent a usage where you have 2 or 3 watermarks where you
> > > could try harder to get more space as you pass each watermark.
> > > 
> > When libvirt reconnects it should poll once and then wait for
> > notification. If you want to have several watermarks configure
> > first one and after getting notification about it configure
> > second one and so on.
> 
> So regardless of whether polling or events are 'best', we need to have the
> pollable QMP command implemented to get rid of the potential for a missed 
> event to a watermark threshold that has already past. The same race problem 
> exists with updating the thresholds on the fly as one is passed.
> 
Of course. Polling command is needed in any case.

--
			Gleb.

  reply	other threads:[~2010-04-27 14:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-04-26 17:26 KVM call agenda for Apr 27 Chris Wright
2010-04-26 17:51 ` Anthony Liguori
2010-04-26 22:12   ` Chris Wright
2010-04-26 22:36     ` Anthony Liguori
2010-04-27  8:14       ` Avi Kivity
2010-04-27  8:48         ` Dor Laor
2010-04-27  8:56           ` Avi Kivity
2010-04-27  9:08             ` Dor Laor
2010-04-27  9:22               ` Avi Kivity
2010-04-27  9:32                 ` Dor Laor
2010-04-27  9:41                   ` Kevin Wolf
2010-04-27 13:15                     ` Anthony Liguori
2010-04-27  9:16             ` Kevin Wolf
2010-04-27  9:28               ` Avi Kivity
2010-04-27 13:03         ` Anthony Liguori
2010-04-27 13:08           ` Avi Kivity
2010-04-27 13:11           ` Daniel P. Berrange
2010-04-27 13:15             ` Gleb Natapov
2010-04-27 13:38               ` Daniel P. Berrange
2010-04-27 14:10                 ` Gleb Natapov [this message]
2010-04-27  8:53       ` [Qemu-devel] " Kevin Wolf
2010-04-27 13:10         ` Anthony Liguori
2010-04-27 13:18           ` Kevin Wolf
2010-04-27 13:21             ` Anthony Liguori
2010-04-27 13:42               ` Kevin Wolf
2010-04-27 13:48                 ` Anthony Liguori
2010-04-27 13:58                   ` Kevin Wolf
2010-04-27 14:01                     ` Anthony Liguori
2010-04-27 11:11       ` Gleb Natapov
2010-04-27 13:00         ` Anthony Liguori
2010-04-27 13:05           ` Gleb Natapov
2010-04-27 13:19             ` Anthony Liguori
2010-04-27 13:29               ` Gleb Natapov
2010-04-27  1:15   ` [Qemu-devel] " Luiz Capitulino
2010-04-27  3:39     ` Aurelien Jarno

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20100427141015.GA22154@redhat.com \
    --to=gleb@redhat.com \
    --cc=anthony@codemonkey.ws \
    --cc=avi@redhat.com \
    --cc=berrange@redhat.com \
    --cc=chrisw@redhat.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox