qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] migration: re-active images when migration fail


From: Hailiang Zhang
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] migration: re-active images when migration fails to complete
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 13:35:53 +0800
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1

Hi,

On 2016/12/6 23:24, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
* Kevin Wolf (address@hidden) wrote:
Am 19.11.2016 um 12:43 hat zhanghailiang geschrieben:
commit fe904ea8242cbae2d7e69c052c754b8f5f1ba1d6 fixed a case
which migration aborted QEMU because it didn't regain the control
of images while some errors happened.

Actually, we have another case in that error path to abort QEMU
because of the same reason:
     migration_thread()
         migration_completion()
            bdrv_inactivate_all() ----------------> inactivate images
            qemu_savevm_state_complete_precopy()
                socket_writev_buffer() --------> error because destination fails
              qemu_fflush() -------------------> set error on migration stream
            qemu_mutex_unlock_iothread() ------> unlock
     qmp_migrate_cancel() ---------------------> user cancelled migration
         migrate_set_state() ------------------> set migrate CANCELLING

Important to note here: qmp_migrate_cancel() is executed by a concurrent
thread, it doesn't depend on any code paths in migration_completion().

     migration_completion() -----------------> go on to fail_invalidate
         if (s->state == MIGRATION_STATUS_ACTIVE) -> Jump this branch
     migration_thread() -----------------------> break migration loop
       vm_start() -----------------------------> restart guest with inactive
                                                 images
We failed to regain the control of images because we only regain it
while the migration state is "active", but here users cancelled the migration
when they found some errors happened (for example, libvirtd daemon is shutdown
in destination unexpectedly).

Signed-off-by: zhanghailiang <address@hidden>
---
  migration/migration.c | 3 ++-
  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/migration/migration.c b/migration/migration.c
index f498ab8..0c1ee6d 100644
--- a/migration/migration.c
+++ b/migration/migration.c
@@ -1752,7 +1752,8 @@ fail_invalidate:
      /* If not doing postcopy, vm_start() will be called: let's regain
       * control on images.
       */
-    if (s->state == MIGRATION_STATUS_ACTIVE) {

This if condition tries to check whether we ran the code path that
called bdrv_inactivate_all(), so that we only try to reactivate images
it if we really inactivated them first.

The problem with it is that it ignores a possible concurrent
modification of s->state.

+    if (s->state == MIGRATION_STATUS_ACTIVE ||
+        s->state == MIGRATION_STATUS_CANCELLING) {

This adds another state that we could end up with with a concurrent
modification, so that even in this case we undo the inactivation.

However, it is no longer limited to the cases where we inactivated the
image. It also applies to other code paths (like the postcopy one) where
we didn't inactivate images.

What saves the patch is that bdrv_invalidate_cache() is a no-op for
block devices that aren't inactivated, so calling it more often than
necessary is okay.

But then, if we're going to rely on this, it would be much better to
just remove the if altogether. I can't say whether there are any other
possible values of s->state that we should consider, and by removing the
if we would be guaranteed to catch all of them.

If we don't want to rely on it, just keep a local bool that remembers
whether we inactivated images and check that here.

          Error *local_err = NULL;

          bdrv_invalidate_cache_all(&local_err);

So in summary, this is a horrible patch because it checks the wrong
thing, and for I can't really say if it covers everything it needs to
cover, but arguably it happens to correctly fix the outcome of a
previously failing case.

Normally I would reject such a patch and require a clean solution, but
then we're on the day of -rc3, so if you can't send v2 right away, we
might not have the time for it.

Tough call...

Hmm, this case is messy; I created this function having split it out
of the main loop a couple of years back but it did get more messy
with more s->state checks; as far as I can tell it's always
done the transition to COMPLETED at the end well after the locked
section, so there's always been that chance that cancellation sneaks
in just before or just after the locked section.

Some of the bad cases that can happen:
    a) A cancel sneaks in after the ACTIVE check but before or after
      the locked section;  should we reactivate the disks? Well that
      depends on whether the destination actually got the full migration
      stream - we don't know!
         If the destination actually starts running we must not reactivate
         the disk on the source even if the CPU is stopped.


Yes, we didn't have a mechanism to know exactly whether or not the VM in
destination is well received.

    b) If the bdrv_inactive_all fails for one device, but the others
       are fine, we go down the fail: label and don't reactivate, so
       the source dies even though it might have been mostly OK.


We can move the _lock to before the check of s->state at the top,
which would stop the cancel sneaking in early.
In the case where postcopy was never enabled (!migrate_postcopy_ram())
we can move the COMPLETED transition into the lock as well; so I think
then we kind of become safe.
In the case where postcopy was enabled I think we can do the COMPLETED
transition before waiting for the return path to close - I think but
I need to think more about that.
And there seem to be some dodgy cases where we call the invalidate
there after a late postcopy failure; that's bad, we shouldn't reactivate
the source disks after going into postcopy.

So, in summary; this function is a mess - it needs a much bigger
fix than this patch.


So what's the conclusion ?
Will you send a patch to fix it ? Or let's fix it step by step ?
I think Kevin's suggestion which just remove the *if* check is OK.

Thanks,
Hailiang

Dave

Kevin

--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / address@hidden / Manchester, UK

.





reply via email to

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