Re: [PATCH 1/2] multifd: use qemu_sem_timedwait in multifd_recv_thread to avoid waiting forever

["Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>]

On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 06:00:24PM +0100, Li Zhang wrote:
> 
> On 11/26/21 5:51 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 05:44:04PM +0100, Li Zhang wrote:
> > > On 11/26/21 4:49 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 04:31:53PM +0100, Li Zhang wrote:
> > > > > When doing live migration with multifd channels 8, 16 or larger number,
> > > > > the guest hangs in the presence of the network errors such as missing TCP ACKs.
> > > > > 
> > > > > At sender's side:
> > > > > The main thread is blocked on qemu_thread_join, migration_fd_cleanup
> > > > > is called because one thread fails on qio_channel_write_all when
> > > > > the network problem happens and other send threads are blocked on sendmsg.
> > > > > They could not be terminated. So the main thread is blocked on qemu_thread_join
> > > > > to wait for the threads terminated.
> > > > Isn't the right answer here to ensure we've called 'shutdown' on
> > > > all the FDs, so that the threads get kicked out of sendmsg, before
> > > > trying to join the thread ?
> > > If we shutdown the channels at sender's side, it could terminate send
> > > threads. The receive threads are still waiting there.
> > > 
> > >  From receiver's side, if wait semaphore is timeout, the channels can be
> > > terminated at last. And the sender threads also be terminated at last.
> > If something goes wrong on the sender side, the mgmt app should be
> > tearing down the destination QEMU entirely, so I'm not sure we need
> > to do anything special to deal with received threads.
> > 
> > Using semtimedwait just feels risky because it will introduce false
> > failures if the system/network is under high load such that the
> > connections don't all establish within 1 second.
> 
> You are right. This may be a risk. I am not sure if the interval is proper,
> we can set longer.

I don't think any kind of timeout is right in this context. There should
be a sem_post() invoked in every scenario where we want to tear down the
recv thread. That should only be the case when we see the other end of
the connection close IMHO.

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|