Am 30.11.2017 um 03:03 hat Fam Zheng geschrieben: > On Wed, 11/29 18:25, Kevin Wolf wrote: > > Am 29.11.2017 um 15:49 hat Fam Zheng geschrieben: > > > While we look at the fixes for 2.11, I briefly prototyped this series > > > to see if it makes sense as a simplification of the drain API for > > > 2.12. > > > > > > The idea is to let AioContext manage quiesce callbacks, then the block > > > layer only needs to do the in-flight request waiting. This lets us get > > > rid of the callback recursion (both up and down). > > > > So essentially you don't drain individual nodes any more, but whole > > AioContexts. I have a feeeling that this would be a step in the wrong > > direction. > > > > Not only would it completely bypass the path I/O requests take and > > potentially drain a lot more than is actually necessary, but it also > > requires that all nodes that are connected in a tree are in the same > > AioContext. > > Yeah, good point. Initially I wanted to introduce a BlockGraph object > which manages the per-graph draining, (i.e. where to register the > drain callbacks), but I felt lazy and used AioContext. > > Will that make it better? BlockGraph would be a proper abstraction > and will not limit the API to one AioContext per tree.
There is only a single graph, so this would mean going back to global bdrv_drain_all() exclusively. What you really mean is probably connected components in the graph, but do we really want to manage merging and splitting object representing connected components when a node is added or removed from the graph? Especially when that graph change occurs in a drain callback? You can also still easily introduce bugs where graph changes during a drain end up in nodes not being drained, possibly drained twice, you still access the next pointer of a deleted node or you accidentally switch to draining a different component. It's probably possible to get this right, but essentially you're just switching from iterating a tree to iterating a list. You get roughly the same set of problems that you have to consider as today, and getting it right should be about the same difficulty. > > And finally, I don't really think that the recursion is even a problem. > > The problem is with graph changes made by callbacks that drain allows to > > run. With your changes, it might be a bit easier to avoid that > > bdrv_drain() itself gets into trouble due to graph changes, but this > > doesn't solve the problem for any (possibly indirect) callers of > > bdrv_drain(). > > The recursion is the one big place that can be easily broken by graph changes, > fixing this doesn't make the situation any worse. We could still fix the > indirect callers by taking references or by introducing "ubiquitous > coroutines". But hiding a bug in 80% of the cases where it shows isn't enough. I think the only real solution is to forbid graph changes until after any critical operation has completed. I haven't tried it out in practice, but I suppose we could use a CoMutex around them and take it in bdrv_drained_begin/end() and all other places that can get into trouble with graph changes. Kevin