On Thu, 09/21 16:40, Max Reitz wrote: > On 2017-09-19 10:03, Fam Zheng wrote: > > On Mon, 09/18 19:53, Max Reitz wrote: > >> On 2017-09-18 08:46, Fam Zheng wrote: > >>> On Wed, 09/13 20:19, Max Reitz wrote: > >>>> Add a new parameter -B to qemu-io's write command. When used, qemu-io > >>>> will not wait for the result of the operation and instead execute it in > >>>> the background. > >>> > >>> Cannot aio_write be used for this purpose? > >> > >> Depends. I have been trained to dislike *_aio_*, so that's probably the > >> initial reason why I didn't use it. > >> > >> Second, I'd have to fix aio_write before it can be used. Currently, > >> this aborts: > >> > >> echo 'qemu-io drv0 "aio_write -P 0x11 0 64M"' \ > >> | x86_64-softmmu/qemu-system-x86_64 -monitor stdio \ > >> -blockdev node-name=drv0,driver=null-co > >> > >> because aio_write_done thinks it's a good idea to use qemu-io's > >> BlockBackend -- but when qemu-io is executed through the HMP, the > >> BlockBackend is only created for the duration of the qemu-io command > >> (unless there already is a BB). So what I'd have to do is add a > >> blk_ref()/blk_unref() there, but for some reason I really don't like that. > > > > What is the reason? If it crashes it should be fixed anyway, I assume? > > Because the AIO CB (aio_write_done()) continues to use qemu-io's BB -- > but in case of HMP's qemu-io, that is pretty much already gone once the > command is done.
I can see aio_{read,write}_done accesses BB for accounting, we can probably skip this part altogether if issued from HMP (because the BB is gone). This way you don't need the blk_ref/unref pair. Fam > > That could be fixed, as I said, by blk_ref()ing the BB before aio_write > returns (and then blk_unref()ing it in aio_write_done()). However, I'm > not even sure whether aio_write_done() is always executed in the main > thread... > > Other than that, I just have a bad feeling about adding the pair, not > sure why. Probably because it means having to carry a temporary BB > around until the command is done, which is weird. Well, it's not an > issue permission-wise, because the qemu-io BB simply doesn't take the > proper permissions (no, I'm not going to question the fact how it's then > possible to even write to it, considering we have assertions that check > whether the correct permissions have been taken...), and I can't think > of another way. > > In any case, you're right, it probably needs to be fixed anyway -- even > if the fix is just not allowing aio_write with a temporary BB (i.e. from > HMP). > > Max >