[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [PATCH for-6.0? 1/3] job: Add job_wait_unpaused() for block-job-comp

From: John Snow
Subject: Re: [PATCH for-6.0? 1/3] job: Add job_wait_unpaused() for block-job-complete
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2021 12:55:47 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.1

On 4/8/21 12:20 PM, Max Reitz wrote:
block-job-complete can only be applied when the job is READY, not when
it is on STANDBY (ready, but paused).  Draining a job technically pauses
it (which makes a READY job enter STANDBY), and ending the drained
section does not synchronously resume it, but only schedules the job,
which will then be resumed.  So attempting to complete a job immediately
after a drained section may sometimes fail.

That is bad at least because users cannot really work nicely around
this: A job may be paused and resumed at any time, so waiting for the
job to be in the READY state and then issuing a block-job-complete poses
a TOCTTOU problem.  The only way around it would be to issue
block-job-complete until it no longer fails due to the job being in the
STANDBY state, but that would not be nice.

We can solve the problem by allowing block-job-complete to be invoked on
jobs that are on STANDBY, if that status is the result of a drained
section (not because the user has paused the job), and that section has
ended.  That is, if the job is on STANDBY, but scheduled to be resumed.

Perhaps we could actually just directly allow this, seeing that mirror
is the only user of ready/complete, and that mirror_complete() could
probably work under the given circumstances, but there may be many side
effects to consider.

It is simpler to add a function job_wait_unpaused() that waits for the
job to be resumed (under said circumstances), and to make
qmp_block_job_complete() use it to delay job_complete() until then.

Buglink: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1945635
Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <mreitz@redhat.com>
  include/qemu/job.h | 15 +++++++++++++++
  blockdev.c         |  3 +++
  job.c              | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  3 files changed, 60 insertions(+)

diff --git a/include/qemu/job.h b/include/qemu/job.h
index efc6fa7544..cf3082b6d7 100644
--- a/include/qemu/job.h
+++ b/include/qemu/job.h
@@ -563,4 +563,19 @@ void job_dismiss(Job **job, Error **errp);
  int job_finish_sync(Job *job, void (*finish)(Job *, Error **errp), Error 
+ * If the job has been paused because of a drained section, and that
+ * section has ended, wait until the job is resumed.
+ *
+ * Return 0 if the job is not paused, or if it has been successfully
+ * resumed.
+ * Return an error if the job has been paused in such a way that
+ * waiting will not resume it, i.e. if it has been paused by the user,
+ * or if it is still drained.
+ *
+ * Callers must be in the home AioContext and hold the AioContext lock
+ * of job->aio_context.
+ */
+int job_wait_unpaused(Job *job, Error **errp);
diff --git a/blockdev.c b/blockdev.c
index a57590aae4..c0cc2fa364 100644
--- a/blockdev.c
+++ b/blockdev.c
@@ -3414,6 +3414,9 @@ void qmp_block_job_complete(const char *device, Error 
+ if (job_wait_unpaused(&job->job, errp) < 0) {
+        return;
+    }

After which point, we assume we've transitioned back to either RUNNING or READY, and

      job_complete(&job->job, errp);

This function checks the usual state table for permission to deliver/perform the verb.

diff --git a/job.c b/job.c
index 289edee143..1ea30fd294 100644
--- a/job.c
+++ b/job.c
@@ -1023,3 +1023,45 @@ int job_finish_sync(Job *job, void (*finish)(Job *, 
Error **errp), Error **errp)
      return ret;
+int job_wait_unpaused(Job *job, Error **errp)
+    /*
+     * Only run this function from the main context, because this is
+     * what we need, and this way we do not have to think about what
+     * happens if the user concurrently pauses the job from the main
+     * monitor.
+     */
+    assert(qemu_get_current_aio_context() == qemu_get_aio_context());
+    /*
+     * Quick path (e.g. so we do not get an error if pause_count > 0
+     * but the job is not even paused)
+     */
+    if (!job->paused) {
+        return 0;
+    }
+    /* If the user has paused the job, waiting will not help */
+    if (job->user_paused) {
+        error_setg(errp, "Job '%s' has been paused by the user", job->id);
+        return -EBUSY;
+    }

Or the job has encountered an error if that error policy is set. It is maybe more accurate to say that the job is currently paused/halted (for some reason) and is awaiting the explicit unpause instruction.

"Job '%s' has been paused and needs to be explicitly resumed with job-resume", maybe?

Job '%s' has been paused and needs to be [explicitly] resumed
[by the user] [with job-resume]

Some combo of those runes.

+    /* Similarly, if the job is still drained, waiting will not help either */
+    if (job->pause_count > 0) {
+        error_setg(errp, "Job '%s' is blocked and cannot be unpaused", 
+        return -EBUSY;
+    }

This leaks an internal state detail out to the caller. In which circumstances does this happen? Do we expect it to?

As the user: Why is it blocked? Can I unblock it? Do I wait?

+    /*
+     * This function is specifically for waiting for a job to be
+     * resumed after a drained section.  Ending the drained section
+     * includes a job_enter(), which schedules the job loop to be run,
+     * and once it does, job->paused will be cleared.  Therefore, we
+     * do not need to invoke job_enter() here.
+     */
+    AIO_WAIT_WHILE(job->aio_context, job->paused);
+    return 0;

Looks about right to me, but you'll want Kevin's look-see for the finer details, of course.

My concern is that this adds a wait of an indefinite period to the job_complete command. We mitigate this by checking for some other internal state criteria first, and then by process of elimination deduce that it's safe to wait, as it will (likely) be very quick.

Do we open the door for ourselves to get into trouble here, either by a state we are forgetting to rule out (You'd have added it if you know the answer to this) or a hypothetical future change where we forget to update this function?

Not necessarily a blocker, I think, and this does solve a real problem fairly inexpensively.

On good faith that you understand the synchronicity issues here better than I do:

Reviewed-by: John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com>

reply via email to

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