Hi,
I’ve tried to investigate what causes the iotest 030 to fail. Here’s
what I found:
(1) stream_prepare() gets the base node by looking up the node below
above_base. It then invokes bdrv_cor_filter_drop(), before we
actually use the base node.
bdrv_cor_filter_drop() modifies the block graph, which means
draining, which means other parties might modify the graph, too.
Therefore, afterwards, the node below above_base might be completely
different, and the base node we got before might already be gone.
(2) bdrv_replace_child_noperm() can set BdrvChild.bs to NULL. That’s
problematic, because most of our code cannot deal with BdrvChild
objects whose .bs pointer is NULL. We assume that such objects are
immediately removed from the BDS.children list, and that they won’t
appear under bs->backing or bs->file (i.e. that those pointers are
immediately NULLed when bs->{backing,file}->bs is NULLed).
After setting BdrvChild.bs to NULL, bdrv_replace_child_noperm() may
invoke bdrv_parent_drained_end_single() on the BdrvChild.
Therefore, other code is run at that point, and it might not be
ready to encounter something like
`bs->backing != NULL && bs->backing->bs == NULL`.
(3) 030 in one case launches four stream jobs concurrently, all with
speed=1024. It then unthrottles them one after each other, but the
problem is that if one job finishes, the jobs above it will be
advanced by a step (which is actually 512k); so since we unthrottle
bottom to top, it’s possible that all jobs below the top job are
finished before we get to unthrottle the top job. This will advance
the top job so far (3 * 512k + 512k = 2M) that it actually finishes
despite still being throttled. Attempting to unthrottle it then
throws an error.
Here’s how I think we can solve these problems:
(1) Invoke bdrv_cor_filter_drop() first, then get the base node
afterwards, when the graph will no longer change.
Implemented in patch 1.
(2A) bdrv_replace_child_noperm() should immediately set bs->file or
bs->backing to NULL when it sets bs->{file,backing}->bs to NULL.
It should also immediately remove any BdrvChild with .bs == NULL
from the parent’s BDS.children list.
Implemented in patches 2 through 6.
(2B) Alternatively, we could always keep the whole subgraph drained
while we manipulate it. Then, the bdrv_parent_drained_end_single()
in bdrv_replace_child_noperm() wouldn’t do anything.
To fix 030, we would need to add a drained section to
stream_prepare(): Namely we’d need to drain the subgraph below the
COR filter node.
This would be a much simpler solution, but I don’t feel like it’s
the right one.
(3) Just unthrottle the jobs from bottom to top instead of top to
bottom.
As you can see, I’m not sure which of 2A or 2B is the right solution. I
decided to investigate both: 2A was much more complicated, but seemed
like the right thing to do; 2B is much simpler, but doesn’t feel as
right. Therefore, I decided to go with 2A in this first version of this
series.
Hanna Reitz (7):
stream: Traverse graph after modification
block: Manipulate children list in .attach/.detach
block: Unite remove_empty_child and child_free
block: Drop detached child from ignore list
block: Pass BdrvChild ** to replace_child_noperm
block: Let replace_child_noperm free children
iotests/030: Unthrottle parallel jobs in reverse
block.c | 178 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
block/stream.c | 7 +-
tests/qemu-iotests/030 | 11 ++-
3 files changed, 144 insertions(+), 52 deletions(-)
--
2.33.1