qemu-block
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: bitmap migration bug with -drive while block mirror runs


From: Kevin Wolf
Subject: Re: bitmap migration bug with -drive while block mirror runs
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2019 18:12:50 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)

Am 01.10.2019 um 17:27 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
> On 01.10.19 17:09, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > Am 01.10.2019 um 16:34 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
> >> On 01.10.19 16:27, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> >>> 01.10.2019 17:13, Max Reitz wrote:
> >>>> On 01.10.19 16:00, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> >>>>> 01.10.2019 3:09, John Snow wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi folks, I identified a problem with the migration code that Red Hat 
> >>>>>> QE
> >>>>>> found and thought you'd like to see it:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1652424#c20
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Very, very briefly: drive-mirror inserts a filter node that changes 
> >>>>>> what
> >>>>>> bdrv_get_device_or_node_name() returns, which causes a migration 
> >>>>>> problem.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ignorant question #1: Can we multi-parent the filter node and
> >>>>>> source-node? It looks like at the moment both consider their only 
> >>>>>> parent
> >>>>>> to be the block-job and don't have a link back to their parents 
> >>>>>> otherwise.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Otherwise: I have a lot of cloudy ideas on how to solve this, but
> >>>>>> ultimately what we want is to be able to find the "addressable" name 
> >>>>>> for
> >>>>>> the node the bitmap is attached to, which would be the name of the 
> >>>>>> first
> >>>>>> ancestor node that isn't a filter. (OR, the name of the block-backend
> >>>>>> above that node.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not the name of ancestor node, it will break mapping: it must be name 
> >>>>> of the
> >>>>> node itself or name of parent (may be through several filters) 
> >>>>> block-backend
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A simple way to do this might be a "child_unfiltered" BdrvChild role
> >>>>>> that simply bypasses the filter that was inserted and serves no real
> >>>>>> purpose other than to allow the child to have a parent link and find 
> >>>>>> who
> >>>>>> it's """real""" parent is.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Because of flushing, reopen, sync, drain &c &c &c I'm not sure how
> >>>>>> feasible this quick idea might be, though.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - Corollary fix #1: call error_setg if the bitmap node name that's 
> >>>>>> about
> >>>>>> to go over the wire is an autogenerated node: this is never correct!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> (Why not? because the target is incapable of matching the node-name
> >>>>>> because they are randomly generated AND you cannot specify node-names
> >>>>>> with # prefixes as they are especially reserved!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> (This raises a related problem: if you explicitly add bitmaps to nodes
> >>>>>> with autogenerated names, you will be unable to migrate them.))
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --js
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What about the following:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/block.c b/block.c
> >>>>> index 5944124845..6739c19be9 100644
> >>>>> --- a/block.c
> >>>>> +++ b/block.c
> >>>>> @@ -1009,8 +1009,20 @@ static void bdrv_inherited_options(int 
> >>>>> *child_flags, QDict *child_options,
> >>>>>        *child_flags = flags;
> >>>>>    }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +static const char *bdrv_child_get_name(BdrvChild *child)
> >>>>> +{
> >>>>> +    BlockDriverState *parent = child->opaque;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +    if (parent->drv && parent->drv->is_filter) {
> >>>>> +        return bdrv_get_parent_name(parent);
> >>>>> +    }
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +    return NULL;
> >>>>> +}
> >>>>> +
> >>>>
> >>>> Why would we skip filters explicitly added by the user?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Why not? Otherwise migration of bitmaps will not work: we may have 
> >>> different set
> >>> of filters on source and destination, and we still should map nodes with 
> >>> bitmaps
> >>> automatically.
> >>
> >> Why would we have a different set of explicitly added filters on source
> >> and destination and allow them to be automatically changed during
> >> migration?  Shouldn’t users only change them pre or post migration?
> > 
> > We never made a requirement that the backend must be the same on the
> > source and the destination. Basically, migration copies the state of
> > frontends and the user is responsible for having these frontends created
> > and connected to the right backends on the destination.
> > 
> > Using different paths on the destination is a very obvious requirement
> > for block devices. It's less obvious for the graph structure, but I
> > don't see a reason why it couldn't change on migration. Say we were
> > using local storage on the source, but now we did storage migration to
> > some network storage, access to which should be throttled.
> 
> I don’t quite see why we couldn’t add such filters before or after
> migration.

Possibly. But why would we when the source doesn't need the filter? We
don't change the image path before migration either.

I think the tricky part is coming up with rules and "keep the frontend
the same, the backend can change arbitrarily" is a very easy rule.

> And it was my impression that bitmap migration was a problem now
> precisely because it is bound to the graph structure.

So apparently I wasn't completely wrong when I preferred just writing
bitmaps back to the image instead of transferring them in the migration
stream...

It's not really bound to the graph structure per se, but to node names
and for non-anonymous BlockBackends to the link between the BB and its
root node. The latter is part of the graph structure, but only a very
small part, and it exists only for legacy (non-blockdev) configurations.

> But anyway.  I’ll gladly remove myself from this discussion because I
> don’t know much about migration and actually I’d prefer to keep it that
> way.  (Sorry.)

Good idea, let's have the migration maintainers handle this.

Kevin

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]