qemu-devel.nongnu.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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.

>

  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).