[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [Bug 1570134] Re: While committing snapshot qemu crashe

From: Fam Zheng
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Bug 1570134] Re: While committing snapshot qemu crashes with SIGABRT
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 08:34:46 +0800
User-agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01)

On Wed, 04/20 22:03, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 20.04.2016 20:09, Max Reitz wrote:
> > On 20.04.2016 02:03, Matthew Schumacher wrote:
> >> Max,
> >>
> >> Qemu still crashes for me, but the debug is again very different.  When
> >> I attach to the qemu process from gdb, it is unable to provide a
> >> backtrace when it crashes.  The log file is different too.  Any ideas?
> >>
> >> qemu-system-x86_64: block.c:2307: bdrv_replace_in_backing_chain:
> >> Assertion `!bdrv_requests_pending(old)' failed.
> > 
> > This message is exactly the same as you saw in 2.5.1, so I guess we've
> > at least averted a regression in 2.6.0.
> I get the same message in 2.5.0, in 2.4.0 it's "Co-routine re-entered
> recursively". 2.3.0 works fine.
> Bisecting the regression between 2.3.0 and 2.4.0 interestingly yields
> 48ac0a4df84662f as the problematic commit, but I can't imagine that this
> is the root issue. The effective change it brings is that for active
> commits, the buf_size is no longer the same as the granularity, but the
> default mirror buf_size instead.
> When forcing buf_size to the granularity, the issue first appears with
> commit 3f09bfbc7bee812 (after 2.4.0, before 2.5.0), which is much less
> surprising, because this is the one that introduced the assertion in the
> first place.
> However, I still don't think the assertion is the problem but the fact
> that the guest device can still send requests after bdrv_drained_begin().

Thanks for debugging this.

bdrv_drained_begin isn't effective because the guest notifier handler is not
registered as "external":

        aio_set_fd_handler(ctx, fd,
                           is_external, /* false */

is_external SHOULD be true here.

reply via email to

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