From: Heinz Graalfs <graalfs@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] drive_del vs. device_del: what should come first?
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2014 16:25:09 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <533C1DC5.6050605@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87eh1h8304.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
On 01/04/14 17:48, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Heinz Graalfs <graalfs@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>
>> Hi Kevin,
>>
>> doing a
>>
>> virsh detach-device ...
>>
>> ends up in the following QEMU monitor commands:
>>
>> 1. device_del ...
>> 2. drive_del ...
>>
>> qmp_device_del() performs the device unplug path.
>> In case of a block device do_drive_del() tries to
>> prevent further IO against the host device.
>>
>> However, bdrv_find() during drive_del() results in
>> an error, because the device is already gone. Due to
>> this error all the bdrv_xxx calls to quiesce the block
>> driver as well as all other processing is skipped.
>>
>> Is the sequence that libvirt triggers OK?
>> Shouldn't drive_del be executed first?
>
> No.
OK, I see. The drive is deleted implicitly (release_drive()).
Doing a device_del() requires another drive_add() AND device_add().
(Doing just a device_add() complains about the missing drive.
A subsequent info qtree lets QEMU abort.)
>
> drive_del is nasty. Its purpose is to revoke access to an image even
> when the guest refuses to cooperate. To the guest, this looks like
> hardware failure.
Deleting a device during active IO is nasty and it should look like a
hardware failure. I would expect lots of errors.
>
> If you drive_del before device_del, even a perfectly well-behaved guest
> guest is exposed to a terminally broken device between drive_del and
> completion of unplug.
The early drive_del() would mean that no further IO would be
possible.
>
> Always try a device_del first, and only if that does not complete within
> reasonable time, and you absolutely must revoke access to the image,
> then whack it over the head with drive_del.
What is this reasonable time?
On 390 we experience problems (QEMU abort) when asynch block IO
completes and the virtqueues are already gone. I suppose the
bdrv_drain_all() in bdrv_close() is a little late. I don't see such
problems with an early bdrv_drain_all() (drive_del) and an unplug
(device_del) afterwards.
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-04-02 14:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-04-01 13:55 [Qemu-devel] drive_del vs. device_del: what should come first? Heinz Graalfs
2014-04-01 15:48 ` Markus Armbruster
2014-04-02 14:25 ` Heinz Graalfs [this message]
2014-04-02 17:40 ` Markus Armbruster
2014-04-03 15:20 ` Heinz Graalfs
2014-04-11 12:47 ` Heinz Graalfs
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=533C1DC5.6050605@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=graalfs@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=armbru@redhat.com \
--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).