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

[Nishanth Aravamudan]

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.
 
>      /* 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).

Thanks in advance!
-Nish