Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] [RFC v2] aio: properly bubble up errors from initialization

[Nishanth Aravamudan]

On 21.06.2018 [15:51:08 +0200], Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 21.06.2018 um 05:26 hat Nishanth Aravamudan geschrieben:
> > On 20.06.2018 [12:34:52 -0700], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > On 20.06.2018 [11:57:42 +0200], Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > > > Am 20.06.2018 um 00:54 hat Nishanth Aravamudan geschrieben:
> > > > > On 19.06.2018 [15:35:57 -0700], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > > > > On 19.06.2018 [13:14:51 -0700], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > > > > > On 19.06.2018 [14:35:33 -0500], Eric Blake wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 06/15/2018 12:47 PM, Nishanth Aravamudan via Qemu-devel 
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > >           } else if (s->use_linux_aio) {
> > > > > > > > > +            int rc;
> > > > > > > > > +            rc = 
> > > > > > > > > aio_setup_linux_aio(bdrv_get_aio_context(bs));
> > > > > > > > > +            if (rc != 0) {
> > > > > > > > > +                error_report("Unable to use native AIO, 
> > > > > > > > > falling back to "
> > > > > > > > > +                             "thread pool.");
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > In general, error_report() should not output a trailing '.'.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Will fix.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > +                s->use_linux_aio = 0;
> > > > > > > > > +                return rc;
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Wait - the message claims we are falling back, but the non-zero 
> > > > > > > > return code
> > > > > > > > sounds like we are returning an error instead of falling back.  
> > > > > > > > (My
> > > > > > > > preference - if the user requested something and we can't do 
> > > > > > > > it, it's better
> > > > > > > > to error than to fall back to something that does not match the 
> > > > > > > > user's
> > > > > > > > request).
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I think that makes sense, I hadn't tested this specific case (in 
> > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > reading of the code, it wasn't clear to me if raw_co_prw() could 
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > called before raw_aio_plug() had been called, but I think 
> > > > > > > returning the
> > > > > > > error code up should be handled correctly. What about the cases 
> > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > there is no error handling (the other two changes in the patch)?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > While looking at doing these changes, I realized that I'm not quite 
> > > > > > sure
> > > > > > what the right approach is here. My original rationale for returning
> > > > > > non-zero was that AIO was requested but could not be completed. I
> > > > > > haven't fully tracked back the calling paths, but I assumed it 
> > > > > > would get
> > > > > > retried at the top level, and since we indicated to not use AIO on
> > > > > > subsequent calls, it will succeed and use threads then (note, that 
> > > > > > I do
> > > > > > now realize this means a mismatch between the qemu command-line and 
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > in-use AIO model).
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > In practice, with my v2 patch, where I do return a non-zero 
> > > > > > error-code
> > > > > > from this function, qemu does not exit (nor is any logging other 
> > > > > > than
> > > > > > that I added emitted on the monitor). If I do not fallback, I 
> > > > > > imagine we
> > > > > > would just continuously see this error message and IO might not 
> > > > > > actually
> > > > > > every occur? Reworking all of the callpath to fail on non-zero 
> > > > > > returns
> > > > > > from raw_co_prw() seems like a fair bit of work, but if that is 
> > > > > > what is
> > > > > > being requested, I can try that (it will just take a while).
> > > > > > Alternatively, I can produce a v3 quickly that does not bubble the
> > > > > > actual errno all the way up (since it does seem like it is ignored
> > > > > > anyways?).
> > > > > 
> > > > > Sorry for the noise, but I had one more thought. Would it be 
> > > > > appropriate
> > > > > to push the _setup() call up to when we parse the arguments about
> > > > > aio=native? E.g., we already check there if cache=directsync is
> > > > > specified and error out if not.
> > > > 
> > > > We already do this:
> > > 
> > > Right, I stated above it already is done, I simply meant adding a second
> > > check here that we can obtain and setup the AIO context successfully.
> 
> Yes, sorry, I misread.
> 
> > > >      /* Currently Linux does AIO only for files opened with O_DIRECT */
> > > >     if (s->use_linux_aio && !(s->open_flags & O_DIRECT)) {
> > > >         error_setg(errp, "aio=native was specified, but it requires "
> > > >                          "cache.direct=on, which was not specified.");
> > > >         ret = -EINVAL;
> > > >         goto fail;
> > > >     }
> > > > 
> > > > laio_init() is about other types of errors. But anyway, yes, calling
> > > > laio_init() already in .bdrv_open() is possible. Returning errors from
> > > > .bdrv_open() is nice and easy and we should do it.
> > > 
> > > Ack.
> > > 
> > > > However, we may also need to call laio_init() again when switching to a
> > > > different I/O thread after the image is already opened. This is what I
> > > > meant when I commented on v1 that you should do this in the
> > > > .bdrv_attach_aio_context callback. The problem here is that we can't
> > > > return an error there and the guest is already using the image. In this
> > > > case, logging an error and falling back to the thread pool seems to be
> > > > the best option we have.
> > > 
> > > Is this is a request for new functionality? Just trying to understand,
> > > because aiui, block/file-posix.c does not implement the
> > > bdrv_attach_aio_context callback currently. Instead, aio_get_linux_aio()
> > > is called from three places, raw_co_prw, raw_aio_plug and
> > > raw_aio_unplug, which calls into laio_init() and
> > > laio_attach_aio_context(). I can add the callback you suggest with
> > > appropriate error handling (I suppose it would point to
> > > laio_attach_aio_context, possibly with some modifications) and remove
> > > the call from aio_get_linux_aio()? Just trying to understand the request
> > > a bit better, as I don't see where exactly iothreads get switched and
> > > how that is implemented currently (and thus where laio_init() would get
> > > called again in the current code).
> 
> It's not new functionality, but moving things to a different place.
> 
> Our goal is that aio_get_linux_aio() never returns NULL in the I/O path
> so that we don't have to duplicate the error handling everywhere. For
> each AioContext, aio_get_linux_aio() can return NULL only the first
> time. Once it successfully returned a LinuxAioState, it will never
> return NULL again for the same AioContext.
> 
> You cover the QEMU main loop AioContext when you call
> aio_get_linux_aio() in raw_open_common(). But whenever the AioContext is
> changed, we can get NULL again on the next aio_get_linux_aio() call
> because we don't know whether that AioContext already successfully
> returned a LinuxAioState before.
> 
> If you call once it in .bdrv_attach_aio_context() and disable Linux AIO
> if it fails, you have centralised all the error paths that you currently
> need in all I/O paths.

Thanks for the clarification!
 
> > While I waited for a reply to this, I started coding on what I think was
> > being asked for and have come to the conclusion that there are actually
> > three bugs here :)
> > 
> > Test cases (with one disk attached to the VM):
> > 
> > 1) Set /proc/sys/fs/max-aio-nr to 0. Specify aio=native and qemu dies
> > with a SIGSEGV.
> >     - This case is understood and pushing the laio_init()-return code
> >       check to the bdrv_open() path fixes this (and allows for the
> >       failure to be communicated to the user).
> 
> Right.
> 
> > 2) Set /proc/sys/fs/max-aio-nr to 128. Specify aio=native and some
> > number of IOThreads. Over qmp issue a x-blockdev-set-iothread command to
> > move the block device node to one of the IOThreads. qemu eventually dies
> > with a SIGSEGV.
> >     - I am fairly sure this is the case you described above, and is
> >       fixed by re-implementing the bdrv_{attach,detach}_aio_context
> >       callbacks. I have a patch that does this and successfully tested
> >       the SEGV is avoided.
> > 
> > 3) Set /proc/sys/fs/max-aio-nr to 512 (I think 256 would be sufficient,
> > though). Specify aio=native and some number of IOThreads. Over qmp issue
> > a x-blockdev-set-iothread command to move the block device node to one
> > of the IOThreads. Shutdown the guest normally. qemu dies with a SIGABRT.
> >     - This appears to be because there is a mismatch in
> >       aio_context_{acquire,release} calls (this is my hypothesis right
> >       now). The abort comes from bdrv_flush -> aio_context_release and
> >       an EPERM from qemu_mutex_unlock_impl() which I believe is just
> >       reflecting an EPERM from pthread_mutex_unlock? My theory is that
> >       the main qemu thread acquired the aio mutex but then the IOThread
> >       released it? I will try and trace the mutexes tomorrow, but I
> >       still don't have a fix for this case.
> 
> x-blockdev-set-iothread is not the proper way to achieve what you want.
> You can only correctly use it with images that are not attached to any
> guest device. If you move a block node to a different I/O thread (and
> therefore AioContext) under the feet of the guest device, crashes aren't
> completely unexpected.
> 
> The proper way to test this would be -device virtio-blk,iothread=...
> In this case, the raw BlockDriverState is first created in the main
> AioContext, but when the virtio-blk device is initialised, it moves it
> to the specified I/O thread.

Thanks again! Turns out 2) is definitely present in master. 3) does not
occur. So I will work on making my patch into 2 patches and repost a v3
later today.

Thanks,
Nish