Am 08.09.2015 um 16:23 hat Denis V. Lunev geschrieben: > On 09/08/2015 04:05 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote: > >Am 08.09.2015 um 13:27 hat Denis V. Lunev geschrieben: > >>interesting point. Yes, it flushes all requests and most likely > >>hangs inside waiting requests to complete. But fortunately > >>this happens after the switch to paused state thus > >>the guest becomes paused. That's why I have missed this > >>fact. > >> > >>This (could) be considered as a problem but I have no (good) > >>solution at the moment. Should think a bit on. > >Let me suggest a radically different design. Note that I don't say this > >is necessarily how things should be done, I'm just trying to introduce > >some new ideas and broaden the discussion, so that we have a larger set > >of ideas from which we can pick the right solution(s). > > > >The core of my idea would be a new filter block driver 'timeout' that > >can be added on top of each BDS that could potentially fail, like a > >raw-posix BDS pointing to a file on NFS. This way most pieces of the > >solution are nicely modularised and don't touch the block layer core. > > > >During normal operation the driver would just be passing through > >requests to the lower layer. When it detects a timeout, however, it > >completes the request it received with -ETIMEDOUT. It also completes any > >new request it receives with -ETIMEDOUT without passing the request on > >until the request that originally timed out returns. This is our safety > >measure against anyone seeing whether or how the timed out request > >modified data. > > > >We need to make sure that bdrv_drain() doesn't wait for this request. > >Possibly we need to introduce a .bdrv_drain callback that replaces the > >default handling, because bdrv_requests_pending() in the default > >handling considers bs->file, which would still have the timed out > >request. We don't want to see this; bdrv_drain_all() should complete > >even though that request is still pending internally (externally, we > >returned -ETIMEDOUT, so we can consider it completed). This way the > >monitor stays responsive and background jobs can go on if they don't use > >the failing block device. > > > >And then we essentially reuse the rerror/werror mechanism that we > >already have to stop the VM. The device models would be extended to > >always stop the VM on -ETIMEDOUT, regardless of the error policy. In > >this state, the VM would even be migratable if you make sure that the > >pending request can't modify the image on the destination host any more. > > > >Do you think this could work, or did I miss something important? > > > >Kevin > could I propose even more radical solution then? > > My original approach was based on the fact that > this could should be maintainable out-of-stream. > If the patch will be merged - this boundary condition > could be dropped. > > Why not to invent 'terror' field on BdrvOptions > and process things in core block layer without > a filter? RB Tree entry will just not created if > the policy will be set to 'ignore'.
'terror' might not be the most fortunate name... ;-) The reason why I would prefer a filter driver is so the code and the associated data structures are cleanly modularised and we can keep the actual block layer core small and clean. The same is true for some other functions that I would rather move out of the core into filter drivers than add new cases (e.g. I/O throttling, backup notifiers, etc.), but which are a bit harder to actually move because we already have old interfaces that we can't break (we'll probably do it anyway eventually, even if it needs a bit more compatibility code). However, it seems that you are mostly touching code that is maintained by Stefan, and Stefan used to be a bit more open to adding functionality to the core, so my opinion might not be the last word. Kevin
