Re: [PULL v3 00/21] Block layer patches

[Juan Quintela]

Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com> wrote:
> Am 19.05.2023 um 20:48 hat Richard Henderson geschrieben:
>> On 5/19/23 10:18, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> > The following changes since commit 
>> > d009607d08d22f91ca399b72828c6693855e7325:

[ Adding Peter Xu, he has worked on postcopy lately]

>> > 
>> >    Revert "arm/kvm: add support for MTE" (2023-05-19 08:01:15 -0700)
>> > 
>> > are available in the Git repository at:
>> > 
>> >    https://repo.or.cz/qemu/kevin.git tags/for-upstream
>> > 
>> > for you to fetch changes up to 95fdd8db61848d31fde1d9b32da7f3f76babfa25:
>> > 
>> >    iotests: Test commit with iothreads and ongoing I/O (2023-05-19 
>> > 19:16:53 +0200)
>> > 
>> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> > Block layer patches
>> > 
>> > - qcow2 spec: Rename "zlib" compression to "deflate"
>> > - Honour graph read lock even in the main thread + prerequisite fixes
>> > - aio-posix: do not nest poll handlers (fixes infinite recursion)
>> > - Refactor QMP blockdev transactions
>> > - graph-lock: Disable locking for now
>> > - iotests/245: Check if 'compress' driver is available
>> > 
>> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> > Akihiro Suda (1):
>> >        docs/interop/qcow2.txt: fix description about "zlib" clusters
>> > 
>> > Kevin Wolf (12):
>> >        block: Call .bdrv_co_create(_opts) unlocked
>> >        block/export: Fix null pointer dereference in error path
>> >        qcow2: Unlock the graph in qcow2_do_open() where necessary
>> >        qemu-img: Take graph lock more selectively
>> >        test-bdrv-drain: Take graph lock more selectively
>> >        test-bdrv-drain: Call bdrv_co_unref() in coroutine context
>> >        blockjob: Adhere to rate limit even when reentered early
>> >        graph-lock: Honour read locks even in the main thread
>> >        iotests/245: Check if 'compress' driver is available
>> >        graph-lock: Disable locking for now
>> >        nbd/server: Fix drained_poll to wake coroutine in right AioContext
>> >        iotests: Test commit with iothreads and ongoing I/O
>> > 
>> > Stefan Hajnoczi (2):
>> >        aio-posix: do not nest poll handlers
>> >        tested: add test for nested aio_poll() in poll handlers
>> > 
>> > Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy (6):
>> >        blockdev: refactor transaction to use Transaction API
>> >        blockdev: transactions: rename some things
>> >        blockdev: qmp_transaction: refactor loop to classic for
>> >        blockdev: transaction: refactor handling transaction properties
>> >        blockdev: use state.bitmap in block-dirty-bitmap-add action
>> >        blockdev: qmp_transaction: drop extra generic layer
>> 
>> Test failure:
>> 
>> https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/jobs/4317480370#L3347
>> 
>> 194              fail       [18:42:03] [18:42:05]   1.2s
>> output mismatch (see 
>> /builds/qemu-project/qemu/build/tests/qemu-iotests/scratch/raw-file-194/194.out.bad)
>> --- /builds/qemu-project/qemu/tests/qemu-iotests/194.out
>> +++ 
>> /builds/qemu-project/qemu/build/tests/qemu-iotests/scratch/raw-file-194/194.out.bad
>> @@ -14,7 +14,6 @@
>>  {"return": {}}
>>  {"data": {"status": "setup"}, "event": "MIGRATION", "timestamp":
>> {"microseconds": "USECS", "seconds": "SECS"}}
>>  {"data": {"status": "active"}, "event": "MIGRATION", "timestamp":
>> {"microseconds": "USECS", "seconds": "SECS"}}
>> -{"data": {"status": "postcopy-active"}, "event": "MIGRATION", "timestamp":
>> {"microseconds": "USECS", "seconds": "SECS"}}
>>  {"data": {"status": "completed"}, "event": "MIGRATION", "timestamp":
>> {"microseconds": "USECS", "seconds": "SECS"}}
>>  Gracefully ending the `drive-mirror` job on source...
>
> You got the same failure on mst's pull request, so this seems to be
> unrelated to the pull request at least.
>
> Maybe it is related to us using different test runners now and the test
> isn't working right there?
>
> I tried to reproduce locally with the same options as the disable-tcg CI
> job uses, but it always passes. Juan, do you have an idea what it could
> mean if on some CI system the "postcopy-active" event is missing?

The only thing that I can think by memory is that the machine go so fast
that we end migration on precopy and don't wait until postcopy.  But
that is a wild guess, will try to take a look at the failure later.

> Kevin

Regards, Juan.