Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] job: replace AioContext lock with job_mutex

[Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy]

13.07.2021 19:38, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 06:18:39PM +0300, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> > 13.07.2021 16:10, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 10:41:46AM +0200, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote:
> > > > On 08/07/2021 15:04, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Jul 08, 2021 at 01:32:12PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > > > > > On 08/07/21 12:36, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > > > > > > > What is very clear from this patch is that it
> > > > > > > > is strictly related to the brdv_* and lower level calls, because
> > > > > > > > they also internally check or even use the aiocontext lock.
> > > > > > > > Therefore, in order to make it work, I temporarly added some
> > > > > > > > aiocontext_acquire/release pair around the function that
> > > > > > > > still assert for them or assume they are hold and temporarly
> > > > > > > > unlock (unlock() - lock()).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sounds like the issue is that this patch series assumes AioContext locks
> > > > > > > are no longer required for calling the blk_*()/bdrv_*() APIs? That is
> > > > > > > not the case yet, so you had to then add those aio_context_lock() calls
> > > > > > > back in elsewhere. This approach introduces unnecessary risk. I think we
> > > > > > > should wait until blk_*()/bdrv_*() no longer requires the caller to hold
> > > > > > > the AioContext lock before applying this series.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In general I'm in favor of pushing the lock further down into smaller and
> > > > > > smaller critical sections; it's a good approach to make further audits
> > > > > > easier until it's "obvious" that the lock is unnecessary.  I haven't yet
> > > > > > reviewed Emanuele's patches to see if this is what he's doing where he's
> > > > > > adding the acquire/release calls, but that's my understanding of both his
> > > > > > cover letter and your reply.
> > > > >
> > > > > The problem is the unnecessary risk. We know what the goal is for
> > > > > blk_*()/bdrv_*() but it's not quite there yet. Does making changes in
> > > > > block jobs help solve the final issues with blk_*()/bdrv_*()?
> > > >
> > > > Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that the bdrv_*()/blk_*()
> > > > operation mostly take care of building, modifying and walking the bds graph.
> > > > So since graph nodes can have multiple AioContext, it makes sense that we
> > > > have a lock when modifying the graph, right?
> > > >
> > > > If so, we can simply try to replace the AioContext lock with a graph lock,
> > > > or something like that. But I am not sure of this.
> > >
> > > Block graph manipulation (all_bdrv_states and friends) requires the BQL.
> > > It has always been this way.
> > >
> > > This raises the question: if block graph manipulation is already under
> > > the BQL and BlockDriver callbacks don't need the AioContext anymore, why
> >
> > I don't believe that block drivers are thread-safe now. They have some 
> > mutexes.. But who make an audit of thread-safety?
>
> Emanuele :)
>
> FWIW I took a look at the stream, mirror, and backup jobs today and
> couldn't find anything that's unsafe after this series. I was expecting
> to find issues but I think Emanuele and Paolo have taken care of them.


Hmm, do you mean that all jobs are thread-safe?

Looking at the mirror, what protects s->ops_in_flight for example? It's 
accessed from job coroutines and from mirror_top filter write operation.

> > > are aio_context_acquire() calls still needed in block jobs?
> > >
> > > AIO_WAIT_WHILE() requires that AioContext is acquired according to its
> > > documentation, but I'm not sure that's true anymore. Thread-safe/atomic
> > > primitives are used by AIO_WAIT_WHILE(), so as long as the condition
> > > being waited for is thread-safe too it should work without the
> > > AioContext lock.
> > >
> > > Back to my comment about unnecessary risk, pushing the lock down is a
> > > strategy for exploring the problem, but I'm not sure those intermediate
> > > commits need to be committed to qemu.git/master because of the time
> > > required to review them and the risk of introducing (temporary) bugs.
> >
> > I agree. Add my bit of criticism:
> >
> > What I dislike about the whole thread-safe update you do:
> >
> > 1. There is no proof of concept - some good example of multiqueue, or something that uses mutliple 
> > threads and shows good performance. Something that works, and shows where are we going to and why 
> > it is good. That may be draft patches with a lot of "FIXME" and "TODO", but 
> > working. For now I feel that I've spent my time to reviewing and proving to myself thread-safety of 
> > two previous thread-safe series, but I don't have a hope to see a benefit of it in the near future..
>
> The multi-queue block layer should improve performance in cases where
> the bottleneck is a single IOThread. It will allow users to assign more
> than one IOThread.
>
> But I think the bigger impact of this work will be addressing
> long-standing problems with the block layer's programming model. We
> continue to have IOThread bugs because there are many undocumented
> assumptions. With the multi-queue block layer the code switches to a
> more well-understood multi-threaded programming model and hopefully
> fewer issues will arise because there is no problematic AioContext lock
> to worry about.
>
> Stefan


--
Best regards,
Vladimir