From: "Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@redhat.com>
To: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>, Stefan Reiter <s.reiter@proxmox.com>
Cc: qemu-block@nongnu.org, armbru@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org,
mreitz@redhat.com, stefanha@redhat.com, t.lamprecht@proxmox.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] block: Assert we're running in the right thread
Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 11:12:26 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c40a0bee-091c-972e-1260-faaba5f4c03c@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200514143043.GI5518@linux.fritz.box>
On 5/14/20 4:30 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 14.05.2020 um 15:52 hat Stefan Reiter geschrieben:
>> On 5/12/20 4:43 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>>> tracked_request_begin() is called for most I/O operations, so it's a
>>> good place to assert that we're indeed running in the home thread of the
>>> node's AioContext.
>>>
>>
>> Is this patch supposed to be always correct or only together with nr. 2?
>>
>> I changed our code to call bdrv_flush_all from the main AIO context and it
>> certainly works just fine (even without this series, so I suppose that would
>> be the 'correct' way to fix it you mention on the cover), though of course
>> it trips this assert without patch 2.
>
> Yes, I think this is a basic assumption that should always be true.
> This series shouldn't fix anything for upstream QEMU (at least I'm not
> aware of anything that needs it), so the assertion could be added even
> without the other patches.
>
> In fact, I'm currently thinking that committing just patch 1 (because
> it's a nice cleanup anyway) and patch 3 (because it will let us know
> when we mess up) might make sense.
FWIW applying 1+3 as no-RFC LGTM.
Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com>
>
> Kevin
>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>> block/io.c | 5 ++++-
>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/block/io.c b/block/io.c
>>> index 7808e8bdc0..924bf5ba46 100644
>>> --- a/block/io.c
>>> +++ b/block/io.c
>>> @@ -695,14 +695,17 @@ static void tracked_request_begin(BdrvTrackedRequest *req,
>>> uint64_t bytes,
>>> enum BdrvTrackedRequestType type)
>>> {
>>> + Coroutine *self = qemu_coroutine_self();
>>> +
>>> assert(bytes <= INT64_MAX && offset <= INT64_MAX - bytes);
>>> + assert(bs->aio_context == qemu_coroutine_get_aio_context(self));
>>> *req = (BdrvTrackedRequest){
>>> .bs = bs,
>>> .offset = offset,
>>> .bytes = bytes,
>>> .type = type,
>>> - .co = qemu_coroutine_self(),
>>> + .co = self,
>>> .serialising = false,
>>> .overlap_offset = offset,
>>> .overlap_bytes = bytes,
>>>
>>
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-20 9:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-05-12 14:43 [RFC PATCH 0/3] block: Synchronous bdrv_*() from coroutine in different AioContext Kevin Wolf
2020-05-12 14:43 ` [RFC PATCH 1/3] block: Factor out bdrv_run_co() Kevin Wolf
2020-05-12 15:37 ` Eric Blake
2020-05-20 9:09 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2020-05-20 11:14 ` Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2020-05-12 14:43 ` [RFC PATCH 2/3] block: Allow bdrv_run_co() from different AioContext Kevin Wolf
2020-05-12 16:02 ` Thomas Lamprecht
2020-05-12 19:29 ` Kevin Wolf
2020-05-25 14:18 ` Stefan Reiter
2020-05-25 16:41 ` Kevin Wolf
2020-05-26 16:42 ` Kevin Wolf
2020-05-27 8:56 ` Stefan Reiter
2020-05-12 14:43 ` [RFC PATCH 3/3] block: Assert we're running in the right thread Kevin Wolf
2020-05-14 13:52 ` Stefan Reiter
2020-05-14 14:30 ` Kevin Wolf
2020-05-20 9:12 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé [this message]
2020-05-14 13:21 ` [RFC PATCH 0/3] block: Synchronous bdrv_*() from coroutine in different AioContext Thomas Lamprecht
2020-05-14 14:26 ` Kevin Wolf
2020-05-19 12:32 ` Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2020-05-19 13:54 ` Denis Plotnikov
2020-05-19 14:18 ` Kevin Wolf
2020-05-19 15:05 ` Denis Plotnikov
2020-05-19 15:29 ` Kevin Wolf
2020-05-19 15:48 ` Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2020-05-19 16:06 ` Eric Blake
2020-05-20 7:23 ` Denis Plotnikov
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=c40a0bee-091c-972e-1260-faaba5f4c03c@redhat.com \
--to=philmd@redhat.com \
--cc=armbru@redhat.com \
--cc=kwolf@redhat.com \
--cc=mreitz@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-block@nongnu.org \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=s.reiter@proxmox.com \
--cc=stefanha@redhat.com \
--cc=t.lamprecht@proxmox.com \
/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).