From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59305) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZZG0u-0001ZA-In for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 08 Sep 2015 06:20:33 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZZG0p-00065b-Jh for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 08 Sep 2015 06:20:32 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:32838) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZZG0p-00065X-Ep for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 08 Sep 2015 06:20:27 -0400 Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 18:20:21 +0800 From: Fam Zheng Message-ID: <20150908102021.GA11908@ad.nay.redhat.com> References: <1441699228-25767-1-git-send-email-den@openvz.org> <20150908092035.GG24489@ad.nay.redhat.com> <20150908101144.GB4230@noname.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150908101144.GB4230@noname.redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC 0/5] disk deadlines List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Kevin Wolf Cc: "Denis V. Lunev" , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Stefan Hajnoczi , "qemu-block@nongnu.org Raushaniya Maksudova" On Tue, 09/08 12:11, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 08.09.2015 um 11:20 hat Fam Zheng geschrieben: > > [Cc'ing qemu-block@nongnu.org] > > > > On Tue, 09/08 11:00, Denis V. Lunev wrote: > > > To avoid such situation this patchset introduces patch per-drive option > > > "disk-deadlines=on|off" which is unset by default. > > > > The general idea sounds very nice. Thanks! > > > > Should we allow user configuration on the timeout? If so, the option should be > > something like "timeout-seconds=0,1,2...". Also I think we could use werror > > and rerror to control the handling policy (whether to ignore/report/stop on > > timeout). > > Yes, I think the timeout needs to be configurable. However, the only > action that makes sense is stop. Everything else would be unsafe because > the running request could still complete at a later point. What if the timeout happens on a quorum child? The management can replace it transparently without stopping the VM. Fam