On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 11:00:15AM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > * Peter Xu (pet...@redhat.com) wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 10:22:43AM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > > > * Fam Zheng (f...@redhat.com) wrote: > > > > On Fri, 09/15 09:42, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > > > > > * Fam Zheng (f...@redhat.com) wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 09/15 16:03, Peter Xu wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 01:44:03PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote: > > > > > > > > bdrv_close_all() would abort() due to op blockers added by > > > > > > > > BMDS, clean > > > > > > > > up migration states when main loop quits to avoid that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Fam Zheng <f...@redhat.com> > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > include/migration/misc.h | 1 + > > > > > > > > migration/migration.c | 7 ++++++- > > > > > > > > vl.c | 3 +++ > > > > > > > > 3 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/include/migration/misc.h b/include/migration/misc.h > > > > > > > > index c079b7771b..b9a26b0898 100644 > > > > > > > > --- a/include/migration/misc.h > > > > > > > > +++ b/include/migration/misc.h > > > > > > > > @@ -54,5 +54,6 @@ bool migration_has_failed(MigrationState *); > > > > > > > > /* ...and after the device transmission */ > > > > > > > > bool migration_in_postcopy_after_devices(MigrationState *); > > > > > > > > void migration_global_dump(Monitor *mon); > > > > > > > > +void migrate_cancel(void); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #endif > > > > > > > > diff --git a/migration/migration.c b/migration/migration.c > > > > > > > > index 959e8ec88e..2c844945c7 100644 > > > > > > > > --- a/migration/migration.c > > > > > > > > +++ b/migration/migration.c > > > > > > > > @@ -1274,11 +1274,16 @@ void qmp_migrate(const char *uri, bool > > > > > > > > has_blk, bool blk, > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -void qmp_migrate_cancel(Error **errp) > > > > > > > > +void migrate_cancel(void) > > > > > > > > { > > > > > > > > migrate_fd_cancel(migrate_get_current()); > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +void qmp_migrate_cancel(Error **errp) > > > > > > > > +{ > > > > > > > > + migrate_cancel(); > > > > > > > > +} > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nit: I would prefer just call migrate_fd_cancel() below, since I > > > > > > > don't > > > > > > > see much point to introduce migrate_cancel() which only calls > > > > > > > migrate_fd_cancel()... > > > > > > > > > > > > migrate_get_current() is a migration internal IMHO. But that can be > > > > > > moved to > > > > > > migrate_fd_cancel() so the parameter is dropped. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > void qmp_migrate_set_cache_size(int64_t value, Error **errp) > > > > > > > > { > > > > > > > > MigrationState *s = migrate_get_current(); > > > > > > > > diff --git a/vl.c b/vl.c > > > > > > > > index fb1f05b937..abbe61f40b 100644 > > > > > > > > --- a/vl.c > > > > > > > > +++ b/vl.c > > > > > > > > @@ -87,6 +87,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) > > > > > > > > #include "sysemu/blockdev.h" > > > > > > > > #include "hw/block/block.h" > > > > > > > > #include "migration/misc.h" > > > > > > > > +#include "migration/savevm.h" > > > > > > > > #include "migration/snapshot.h" > > > > > > > > #include "migration/global_state.h" > > > > > > > > #include "sysemu/tpm.h" > > > > > > > > @@ -4799,6 +4800,8 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv, char > > > > > > > > **envp) > > > > > > > > iothread_stop_all(); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pause_all_vcpus(); > > > > > > > > + migrate_cancel(); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IIUC this is an async cancel, so when reach here the migration > > > > > > > thread > > > > > > > can still be alive. Then... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + qemu_savevm_state_cleanup(); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... Here calling qemu_savevm_state_cleanup() may be problematic if > > > > > > > migration thread has not yet quitted. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm thinking whether we should make migrate_fd_cancel() wait > > > > > > > until the > > > > > > > migration thread finishes (state change to CANCELLED). Then the > > > > > > > migration thread will do the cleanup, and here we can avoid > > > > > > > calling > > > > > > > qemu_savevm_state_cleanup() as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > But if the migration thread is stuck and CANCELLED is never > > > > > > reached, we'll hang > > > > > > here? > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure I see an easy fix; I agree with Peter that calling > > > > > migrate_cancel() followed by qemu_savevm_state_cleanup() is racy, > > > > > because the cancel just forces the state to CANCELLING before coming > > > > > back to you, and the migration thread asynchronously starts to > > > > > fail/cleanup. > > > > > > > > > > migrate_cancel() can forcibly unblock some cases because it calls > > > > > shutdown(2) on the network fd, but there are other ways for a > > > > > migration > > > > > to hang. > > > > > > > > > > Having said that, the migration thread does it's calls > > > > > to qemu_savevm_state_cleanup under the lock_iothread; > > > > > Do we have that lock at this point? > > > > > > > > Yes we do. Main loop releases the lock only during poll(), other parts > > > > of > > > > main() all have the lock. > > > > > > Having said that though this is pretty confusing; because at this point > > > we're after main_loop has exited. > > > I don't think the migration thread will exit without having taken the > > > iothread lock; so if we've got it at this point then the migration > > > thread will never exit, and it will never call qemu_savevm_state_cleanup > > > itself - so that race might not exist? > > > > Is that because we are taking the BQL in migration_thread()? Please > > see my below questions... > > Yes; there are a few places we take it. > > > > However, assuming the migration is at an earlier point, it might be > > > calling one of the state handlers that you're cleaning up, and that's > > > racy in individual devices. > > > > > > If we have the lock I don't think we can wait for the migration to > > > complete/cancel. The transition from cancelling->cancelled happens > > > in migrate_fd_cleanup() - and that's run of a bh which I assume don't > > > work any more at this point. > > > > > > Perhaps the answer is to move this to qemu_system_shutdown_request prior > > > to the point where shutdown_requested is set? At that point we've > > > still got the main loop, although hmm I'm not convinced if it's > > > consistent whether that's called with or without the lock held. > > > > I do think the migration cleanup part needs some cleanup itself... :) > > > > Actually I have two questions here about BQL and migration: > > > > (1) I see that we took BQL in migration_thread(), but if the migration > > thread is to be cancelled, could we avoid taking the lock for the > > cancelling case right after we break from the big migration loop? > > Since I don't see why we need it if we are after all going to > > cancel the migration... (though this one may need some other > > cleanups to let it work I guess) > > If you mean the lock just before 'The resource has been allocated...' > no I don't think so; I'm not sure - I worry about what would happen if > someone issued a migrate_cancel or another migrate command during that > time - but then that could happen just before the lock_iothread so I'm > not sure we're any worse off.
For these cases, I think we should first check the migration status, then we proceed. I think that's what we have done in qmp_migrate(), however something we missed in qmp_migrate_cancel() (so I think we should add it soon). Besides these cases, IMHO the BQL should be used for either vm_start() or runstate_set() below. However again, I'm thinking whether we can avoid taking the lock for "cancelling" case. If my understanding is correct above, I would like to give it a shot. > > > > (2) I see that we took BQL in migrate_fd_cleanup(). Could I ask why > > we had that? Can we remove it? > > Note migrate_fd_cleanup is called in a bh, so I think that means it's > entered with the lock held and that just drops it while we wait > for the other thread. Ah, sorry I obviously misread the code on the ordering of lock/unlock... Thanks, -- Peter Xu