Am 18.05.2018 um 14:14 hat Kevin Wolf geschrieben: > Am 18.05.2018 um 12:34 hat Dr. David Alan Gilbert geschrieben: > > * Kevin Wolf (kw...@redhat.com) wrote: > > > Am 16.05.2018 um 01:39 hat Juan Quintela geschrieben: > > > > We need to make sure that we have started all the multifd threads. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Juan Quintela <quint...@redhat.com> > > > > Reviewed-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> > > > > > > This commit makes qemu-iotests 091 hang for me. Either it breaks > > > backward compatibility intentionally and we need to update the test > > > case, or there is a bug somewhere. > > > > It's not an intentional break. > > And the avocado tcp and exec migrations pass OK, so hmm. > > In case it helps, 169 fails as well and I got a core dump of an aborting > QEMU process: > > (gdb) bt > #0 0x00007ff079f779fb in raise () at /lib64/libc.so.6 > #1 0x00007ff079f79800 in abort () at /lib64/libc.so.6 > #2 0x00007ff079f700da in __assert_fail_base () at /lib64/libc.so.6 > #3 0x00007ff079f70152 in () at /lib64/libc.so.6 > #4 0x000055c2126f067b in bdrv_close_all () at block.c:3375 > #5 0x000055c2123c54a6 in main (argc=<optimized out>, argv=<optimized out>, > envp=<optimized out>) at vl.c:4682 > > If I understand correctly, that assertion failure means that someone is > still holding a reference to a block device after all user-owned > references have been closed. I suppose this was the source qemu and > the migration hasn't been completed properly, though I haven't looked at > the code yet and this idea might be completely wrong. > > Anyway, 091 is certainly the simpler test case to play with, but maybe > this gives you another hint.
Any news on this? This is starting to become really annoying as a hanging test suite impacts my ability to properly test block layer patches. If there is no hope of quickly getting a proper fix for this, we may have to revert something for now to fight the symptoms at least. Kevin
