Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH v4 for 2.12 0/3] fix bitmaps migration through shared storage

[Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy]

29.03.2018 18:09, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> 29.03.2018 17:03, Max Reitz wrote:
> > On 2018-03-29 10:08, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> > > 28.03.2018 17:53, Max Reitz wrote:
> > > > On 2018-03-27 12:11, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > > > > isn't it because a lot of cat processes? will check, update loop to
> > > > > i=0; while check -qcow2 169; do ((i++)); echo $i OK; killall -9 cat;
> > > > > done
> > > > Hmm...  I know I tried to kill all of the cats, but for some reason 
> > > > that
> > > > didn't really help yesterday.  Seems to help now, for 2.12.0-rc0 at
> > > > least (that is, before this series).
> > > reproduced with killing... (without these series, just on master)
> > >
> > > > After the whole series, I still get a lot of failures in 169
> > > > (mismatching bitmap hash, mostly).
> > > >
> > > > And interestingly, if I add an abort():
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/block/qcow2.c b/block/qcow2.c
> > > > index 486f3e83b7..9204c1c0ac 100644
> > > > --- a/block/qcow2.c
> > > > +++ b/block/qcow2.c
> > > > @@ -1481,6 +1481,7 @@ static int coroutine_fn
> > > > qcow2_do_open(BlockDriverState *bs, QDict *options,     }
> > > >
> > > >        if (bdrv_dirty_bitmap_next(bs, NULL)) {
> > > > +        abort();
> > > >            /* It's some kind of reopen with already existing dirty
> > > > bitmaps. There
> > > >             * are no known cases where we need loading bitmaps in such
> > > > situation,
> > > >             * so it's safer don't load them.
> > > >
> > > > Then this fires for a couple of test cases of 169 even without the 
> > > > third
> > > > patch of this series.
> > > >
> > > > I guess bdrv_dirty_bitmap_next() reacts to some bitmaps that migration
> > > > adds or something?  Then this would be the wrong condition, because I
> > > > guess we still want to load the bitmaps that are in the qcow2 file.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure whether bdrv_has_readonly_bitmaps() is the correct
> > > > condition then, either, though.  Maybe let's take a step back: We want
> > > > to load all the bitmaps from the file exactly once, and that is 
> > > > when it
> > > > is opened the first time.  Or that's what I would have thought...  Is
> > > > that even correct?
> > > >
> > > > Why do we load the bitmaps when the device is inactive anyway?
> > > > Shouldn't we load them only once the device is activated?
> > > Hmm, not sure. May be, we don't need. But we anyway need to load them,
> > > when opening read-only, and we should correspondingly reopen in this 
> > > case.
> > Yeah, well, yeah, but the current state seems just wrong. Apparently
> > there are cases where a qcow2 node may have bitmaps before we try to
> > load them from the file, so the current condition doesn't work.
> >
> > Furthermore, it seems like the current "state machine" is too complex so
> > we don't know which cases are possible anymore and what to do when.
> >
> > So the first thing we could do is add a field to the BDRVQCow2State that
> > tells us whether the bitmaps have been loaded already or not. If not,
> > we invoke qcow2_load_dirty_bitmaps() and set the value to true. If the
> > value was true already and the BDS is active and R/W now, we call
> > qcow2_reopen_bitmaps_rw_hint().  That should solve one problem.
>
> good idea, will do.
>
> > The other problem of course is the question whether we should call
> > qcow2_load_dirty_bitmaps() at all while the drive is still inactive.
> > You know the migration model better than me, so I'm asking this question
> > to you.  We can phrase it differently: Do we need to load the bitmaps
> > before the drive is activated?
>
> Now I think that we don't need. At least, we don't have such cases in 
> Virtuozzo (I hope :).
>
> Why did I doubt:
>
> 1. We have cases, when we want to start vm as inactive, to be able to 
> export it's drive as NBD export, push some data to it and then start 
> the VM (which involves activating)
> 2. We have cases, when we want to start vm stopped and operate on 
> dirty bitmaps.
>
> If just open all images in inactive mode until vm start, it looks like 
> we need bitmaps in inactive mode (for 2.). But it looks like wrong 
> approach anyway.
> Firstly, I tried to solve (1.) by simply inactivate_all() in case of 
> start vm in paused mode, but it breaks at least (2.), so finally, I 
> solved (1.) by an approach similar with "-incoming defer". So, we have 
> inactive mode in two cases:
>  - incoming migration
>  - push data to vm before start
>
> and, in these cases, we don't need to load dirty-bitmaps.
>
> Also, inconsistency: now, we remove persistent bitmaps on inactivate. 
> So, it is inconsistent to load the in inactive mode.
>
> Ok, I'll try to respin.

finally, what cases we actually have for qcow2_do_open?

1. INACTIVE -> ACTIVE (through invalidate_cache, we obviously should 
load bitmaps, if we decided that we have no persistent bitmaps in 
INACTIVE mode)
2. creating new bdrv state (first open of the image) in INACTIVE mode 
(will not load bitmaps)
3. creating new bdrv state (first open of the image) in ACTIVE mode 
(will load bitmaps, maybe read-only if disk is RO)

If only these three cases, it would be enough to just load bitmaps if 
!INACTIVE and do nothing otherwise.

Or, we have some of the following cases too?

1?. ACTIVE -> ACTIVE (through invalidate_cache, some kind of no-op, we 
should not reload bitmaps)
2?. RO -> RW (we should reopen_bitmaps_rw) (or it is possible only 
through bdrv_reopen, which will not touch qcow2_do_open?
3?. RW -> RO (reopen_bitmaps_ro ?)
? something other??

> > Max
>
> about 169, how often is it reproducible for you?

it becomes very interseting.

persistent-migbitmap-online case failed on line 136. with mismathced 
bitmap sha. This check is not relate to migration, on this line, bitmap 
is already successfully migrated. But for some reason it is corrupted 
after stop/start the VM. How is it possible - I can't imagine. But it 
looks not really related to migration.. May it relate to case, when 
postcopy was not finished or something like this?.. maybe fixing 
wait(RESUME) to something more appropriate will help. But it is strange 
anyway.

persistent-notmigbitmap-offline case failed on ine 128, which is 
"self.vm_b.event_wait("RESUME", timeout=10.0)" with timeout.. can we 
skip RESUME for some reason? maybe just move to MIGRATION event will 
help, will check

--
Best regards,
Vladimir