Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] blk: postpone request execution on a context protected with "drained section"

[Denis Plotnikov <dplotnikov@virtuozzo.com>]

ping ping!!!

On 18.12.2018 11:53, Denis Plotnikov wrote:
> ping ping
> 
> On 14.12.2018 14:54, Denis Plotnikov wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 13.12.2018 15:20, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>>> Am 13.12.2018 um 12:07 hat Denis Plotnikov geschrieben:
>>>> On 12.12.2018 15:24, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>>>>> Am 11.12.2018 um 17:55 hat Denis Plotnikov geschrieben:
>>>>>>> Why involve the AioContext at all? This could all be kept at the
>>>>>>> BlockBackend level without extending the layering violation that
>>>>>>> aio_disable_external() is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BlockBackends get notified when their root node is drained, so 
>>>>>>> hooking
>>>>>>> things up there should be as easy, if not even easier than in
>>>>>>> AioContext.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just want to make sure that I understood correctly what you meant by
>>>>>> "BlockBackends get notified". Did you mean that bdrv_drain_end calls
>>>>>> child's role callback blk_root_drained_end by calling
>>>>>> bdrv_parent_drained_end?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, blk_root_drained_begin/end calls are all you need. Specifically,
>>>>> their adjustments to blk->quiesce_counter that are already there, 
>>>>> and in
>>>>> the 'if (--blk->quiesce_counter == 0)' block of blk_root_drained_end()
>>>>> we can resume the queued requests.
>>>> Sounds it should be so, but it doesn't work that way and that's why:
>>>> when doing mirror we may resume postponed coroutines too early when the
>>>> underlying bs is protected from writing at and thus we encounter the
>>>> assert on a write request execution at bdrv_co_write_req_prepare when
>>>> resuming the postponed coroutines.
>>>>
>>>> The thing is that the bs is protected for writing before execution of
>>>> bdrv_replace_node at mirror_exit_common and bdrv_replace_node calls
>>>> bdrv_replace_child_noperm which, in turn, calls 
>>>> child->role->drained_end
>>>> where one of the callbacks is blk_root_drained_end which check
>>>> if(--blk->quiesce_counter == 0) and runs the postponed requests
>>>> (coroutines) if the coundition is true.
>>>
>>> Hm, so something is messed up with the drain sections in the mirror
>>> driver. We have:
>>>
>>>      bdrv_drained_begin(target_bs);
>>>      bdrv_replace_node(to_replace, target_bs, &local_err);
>>>      bdrv_drained_end(target_bs);
>>>
>>> Obviously, the intention was to keep the BlockBackend drained during
>>> bdrv_replace_node(). So how could blk->quiesce_counter ever get to 0
>>> inside bdrv_replace_node() when target_bs is drained?
>>>
>>> Looking at bdrv_replace_child_noperm(), it seems that the function has
>>> a bug: Even if old_bs and new_bs are both drained, the quiesce_counter
>>> for the parent reaches 0 for a moment because we call .drained_end for
>>> the old child first and .drained_begin for the new one later.
>>>
>>> So it seems the fix would be to reverse the order and first call
>>> .drained_begin for the new child and then .drained_end for the old
>>> child. Sounds like a good new testcase for tests/test-bdrv-drain.c, too.
>> Yes, it's true, but it's not enough...
>> In mirror_exit_common() we actively manipulate with block driver states.
>> When we replaced a node in the snippet you showed we can't allow the 
>> postponed coroutines to run because the block tree isn't ready to 
>> receive the requests yet.
>> To be ready, we need to insert a proper block driver state to the 
>> block backend which is done here
>>
>>      blk_remove_bs(bjob->blk);
>>      blk_set_perm(bjob->blk, 0, BLK_PERM_ALL, &error_abort);
>>      blk_insert_bs(bjob->blk, mirror_top_bs, &error_abort); << << << <<
>>
>>      bs_opaque->job = NULL;
>>
>>      bdrv_drained_end(src);
>>
>> If the tree isn't ready and we resume the coroutines, we'll end up 
>> with the request landed in a wrong block driver state.
>>
>> So, we explicitly should stop all activities on all the driver states
>> and its parents and allow the activities when everything is ready to go.
>>
>> Why explicitly, because the block driver states may belong to 
>> different block backends at the moment of the manipulation beginning.
>>
>> So, it seems we need to disable all their contexts until the 
>> manipulation ends.
>>
>> Please, correct me if I'm wrong.
>>
>>>
>>>> In seems that if the external requests disabled on the context we can't
>>>> rely on anything or should check where the underlying bs and its
>>>> underlying nodes are ready to receive requests which sounds quite
>>>> complicated.
>>>> Please correct me if still don't understand something in that routine.
>>>
>>> I think the reason why reyling on aio_disable_external() works is simply
>>> because src is also drained, which keeps external events in the
>>> AioContext disabled despite the bug in draining the target node.
>>>
>>> The bug would become apparent even with aio_disable_external() if we
>>> didn't drain src, or even if we just supported src and target being in
>>> different AioContexts.
>>
>> Why don't we disable all those contexts involved until the end of the 
>> block device tree reconstruction?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Denis
>>>
>>> Kevin
>>>
>>
> 

-- 
Best,
Denis