[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v7 4/7] qapi: remove COMMAND_DROPPED event

From: Peter Xu
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v7 4/7] qapi: remove COMMAND_DROPPED event
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2018 13:30:55 +0800
User-agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)

On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 03:41:16PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 09:30:52AM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
> > On 09/03/2018 08:31 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> > 
> > > Example:
> > > 
> > >      client sends in-band command #1
> > >      QEMU reads and queues
> > >      QEMU dequeues in-band command #1
> > >      in-band command #1 starts executing, but it's slooow
> > >      client sends in-band command #2
> > >      QEMU reads and queues
> > >      ...
> > >      client sends in-band command #8
> > >      QEMU reads, queues and suspends the monitor
> > >      client sends out-of-band command
> > > --> time passes...
> > >      in-band command #1 completes, QEMU sends reply
> > >      QEMU dequeues in-band command #2, resumes the monitor
> > >      in-band command #2 starts executing
> > >      QEMU reads and executes out-of-band command
> > >      out-of-band command completes, QEMU sends reply
> > >      in-band command #2 completes, QEMU sends reply
> > >      ... same for remaining in-band commands ...
> > > 
> > > The out-of-band command gets stuck behind the in-band commands.

(It's a shame of me to have just noticed that the out-of-band command
 will be stuck after we dropped the COMMAND_DROP event... so now I
 agree it's not that ideal any more to drop the event but maybe still

> > > 
> > > The client can avoid this by managing the flow of in-band commands: have
> > > no more than 7 in flight, so the monitor never gets suspended.
> > > 
> > > This is a potentially useful thing to do for clients, isn't it?
> > > 
> > > Eric, Daniel, is it something libvirt would do?
> > 
> > Right now, libvirt serializes commands - it never sends a QMP command until
> > the previous command's response has been processed. But that may not help
> > much, since libvirt does not send OOB commands.
> Note that is not merely due to the QMP monitor restriction either.
> Libvirt serializes all its public APIs that can change state of a running
> domain.  It usually aims to allow read-only APIs to be run in parallel with
> APIs that change state.
> The exception to the rule right now are some of the migration APIs which
> we allow to be invoked to manage the migration process. 
> > I guess when we are designing what libvirt should do, and deciding WHEN it
> > should send OOB commands, we have the luxury of designing libvirt to enforce
> > how many in-flight in-band commands it will ever have pending at once
> > (whether the current 'at most 1', or even if we make it more parallel to 'at
> > most 7'), so that we can still be ensured that the OOB command will be
> > processed without being stuck in the queue of suspended in-band commands.
> > If we never send more than one in-band at a time, then it's not a concern
> > how deep the qemu queue is; but if we do want libvirt to start parallel
> > in-band commands, then you are right that having a way to learn the qemu
> > queue depth is programmatically more precise than just guessing the maximum
> > depth.  But it's also hard to argue we need that complexity if we don't have
> > an immediate use envisioned for it.
> In terms of what libvirt would want to parallelize, I think it is reasonable
> to consider any of the query-XXXX commands desirable. Other stuff is likely
> to remain serialized from libvirt's side.

IMHO concurrency won't help much now even for query commands, since
our current concurrency is still "partly" - the executions of query
commands (which is the most time consuming part) will still be done
sequentially, so even if we send multiple query commands in parallel
(without waiting for a response of any sent commands), the total time
used for the list of commands would be mostly the same.

My understanding for why we have such a queue length now is that it
came from a security concern: after we have a queue, we need that
queue length to limit the memory usages for the QMP server.  Though
that might not help much for real users like Libvirt, it's majorly
serving as a way to protect QEMU QMP from being attacked or from being
turned down by a buggy QMP client.

But I agree now that the queue length information might still be
helpful some day.  Maybe, we can hide that until we support executing
commands in parallel for some of them.


Peter Xu

reply via email to

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