From: "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@redhat.com>
To: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
Cc: Chris Wright <chrisw@redhat.com>,
qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: KVM call agenda for Apr 27
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 14:38:17 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100427133817.GJ3681@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100427131554.GJ10044@redhat.com>
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.
Daniel
--
|: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://deltacloud.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-04-27 13:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-04-26 17:26 [Qemu-devel] KVM call agenda for Apr 27 Chris Wright
2010-04-26 17:51 ` [Qemu-devel] " 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 [this message]
2010-04-27 14:10 ` Gleb Natapov
2010-04-27 8:53 ` 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 ` 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=20100427133817.GJ3681@redhat.com \
--to=berrange@redhat.com \
--cc=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=chrisw@redhat.com \
--cc=gleb@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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).