From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ACA9C433F5 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 2021 12:52:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA4A663222 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 2021 12:52:38 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org EA4A663222 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:49646 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mnKQV-0007Z2-Vk for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Wed, 17 Nov 2021 07:52:37 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:55968) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mnKPS-0005NT-0Z for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 17 Nov 2021 07:51:30 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([216.205.24.124]:25120) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mnKPQ-00073X-3I for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 17 Nov 2021 07:51:29 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1637153486; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=1jXyaGsieylKGj9xbqb0Dbcdb7+/iWV16rsTXdzOMj0=; b=Re4bnzbBxORngnxdOONtqr5c6ZQOrl/C3tSBIncnwC33uPfH5Eb/Fj9olsTbrJ0kTWp0nc /wESRyAzGYlLJ/X970u53ZBjw9MTT8brwYAq/XzRKvcfhrZvQjh/n2lnuiwvLAhyvxs/Ih Jsy3BR1XsLaoT4bJHGrGnbS9byOhkYs= Received: from mail-wr1-f70.google.com (mail-wr1-f70.google.com [209.85.221.70]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-589-AfUCjuBRMBeMqB4zPx2jUg-1; Wed, 17 Nov 2021 07:51:25 -0500 X-MC-Unique: AfUCjuBRMBeMqB4zPx2jUg-1 Received: by mail-wr1-f70.google.com with SMTP id b1-20020a5d6341000000b001901ddd352eso349782wrw.7 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 2021 04:51:25 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:to:cc:references:from:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=1jXyaGsieylKGj9xbqb0Dbcdb7+/iWV16rsTXdzOMj0=; b=75ipDQea+qMsfmhZum2QR5oL+EXPclblQjF3VsJVxzUzaI+JZPsVDXM9d1IR6v0pGE 930V7FrEsJbgwitq2CQoHrBlXAVkeco7BSAQaEjfRcWA/JUOlM4jEfRP5vDlLkhL9+KV us846OfslT1y3c8GaaKeANbnebzUjvdYns4R45K/RUEBXhNbd2y9/Kv+Jtw1R7DesAlf 9YH2Nzr/7k+//cpIylXd4IiPcx4r1YvcYaU96PGBRbs8+4KL4UA6o6fdeXA4qT1DHglm AlkUeIqZ3OsYW8lGBj6SpCS1e18pGWXRsUuEDAaOUQaPNxToV/NT3r9viYLQSoCFFXMO Lxhw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530q7iDuh9fovAAo7RgN4O4mqwOtnqVxMStHFS6knbf3tJvFezYc p/lYoaORxokWyEVSiwI8iJ90J+akVRSNyIQuuuWRDIs68q2oEs7dSoSUS8+ur2braOUn/e5W8a/ NQ1x7YYs7h2HUznE= X-Received: by 2002:adf:d84c:: with SMTP id k12mr19909700wrl.24.1637153484691; Wed, 17 Nov 2021 04:51:24 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyZiR1qhJ/014oLk13M7k5nzGx9xxgL3xtgQnS/fUtRVpuc0tqJCrwQgm2j4REMwPpYHJRdtw== X-Received: by 2002:adf:d84c:: with SMTP id k12mr19909674wrl.24.1637153484474; Wed, 17 Nov 2021 04:51:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPV6:2a02:8071:5055:3f20:ca91:ec4d:49ff:d0d1? ([2a02:8071:5055:3f20:ca91:ec4d:49ff:d0d1]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p2sm6036238wmq.23.2021.11.17.04.51.23 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 17 Nov 2021 04:51:24 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <01dabd9f-9443-2482-431d-51055f99885d@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2021 13:51:23 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.3.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 20/25] block_int-common.h: assertion in the callers of BlockDriver function pointers To: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito , qemu-block@nongnu.org References: <20211025101735.2060852-1-eesposit@redhat.com> <20211025101735.2060852-21-eesposit@redhat.com> <83cf9336-e37d-bf48-961c-8103b5c7bc62@redhat.com> <197a79f6-c9c2-d73b-7e38-e88ccc2e0a57@redhat.com> From: Hanna Reitz In-Reply-To: <197a79f6-c9c2-d73b-7e38-e88ccc2e0a57@redhat.com> Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=hreitz@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.205.24.124; envelope-from=hreitz@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -44 X-Spam_score: -4.5 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.5 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.701, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-1.009, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Kevin Wolf , Fam Zheng , Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy , =?UTF-8?Q?Daniel_P=2e_Berrang=c3=a9?= , Eduardo Habkost , Juan Quintela , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, John Snow , Richard Henderson , Markus Armbruster , "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" , Stefan Hajnoczi , Paolo Bonzini , Eric Blake Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On 17.11.21 12:33, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote: > > > On 15/11/2021 13:48, Hanna Reitz wrote: >> On 25.10.21 12:17, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote: >>> Signed-off-by: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito >>> Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi >>> --- >>>   block.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++ >>>   1 file changed, 17 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/block.c b/block.c >>> index 94bff5c757..40c4729b8d 100644 >>> --- a/block.c >>> +++ b/block.c >> >> [...] >> >>> @@ -2148,6 +2152,7 @@ static void bdrv_child_perm(BlockDriverState >>> *bs, BlockDriverState *child_bs, >>>                               uint64_t *nperm, uint64_t *nshared) >>>   { >>>       assert(bs->drv && bs->drv->bdrv_child_perm); >>> +    assert(qemu_in_main_thread()); >>>       bs->drv->bdrv_child_perm(bs, c, role, reopen_queue, >>>                                parent_perm, parent_shared, >>>                                nperm, nshared); >> >> (Should’ve noticed earlier, but only did now...) >> >> First, this function is indirectly called by bdrv_refresh_perms(). I >> understand that all perm-related functions are classified as GS. >> >> However, bdrv_co_invalidate_cache() invokes bdrv_refresh_perms. Being >> declared in block/coroutine.h, it’s an I/O function, so it mustn’t >> call such a GS function. BlockDriver.bdrv_co_invalidate_cache(), >> bdrv_invalidate_cache(), and blk_invalidate_cache() are also >> classified as I/O functions. Perhaps all of these functions should be >> classified as GS functions?  I believe their callers and their >> purpose would allow for this. > > I think that the *_invalidate_cache functions are I/O. > First of all, test-block-iothread.c calls bdrv_invalidate_cache in > test_sync_op_invalidate_cache, which is purposefully called in an > iothread. So that hints that we want it as I/O. Hm, OK, but bdrv_co_invalidate_cache() calls bdrv_refresh_perms(), which is a GS function, so that shouldn’t work, right? > (Small mistake I just noticed: blk_invalidate_cache has the BQL > assertion even though it is rightly put in block-backend-io.h > >> >> Second, it’s called by bdrv_child_refresh_perms(), which is called by >> block_crypto_amend_options_generic_luks().  This function is called >> by block_crypto_co_amend_luks(), which is a BlockDriver.bdrv_co_amend >> implementation, which is classified as an I/O function. >> >> Honestly, I don’t know how to fix that mess.  The best would be if we >> could make the perm functions thread-safe and classify them as I/O, >> but it seems to me like that’s impossible (I sure hope I’m wrong).  >> On the other hand, .bdrv_co_amend very much strikes me like a GS >> function, but it isn’t.  I’m afraid it must work on nodes that are >> not in the main context, and it launches a job, so AFAIU we >> absolutely cannot run it under the BQL. >> >> It almost seems to me like we’d need a thread-safe variant of the >> perm functions that’s allowed to fail when it cannot guarantee thread >> safety or something.  Or perhaps I’m wrong and the perm functions can >> actually be classified as thread-safe and I/O, that’d be great… > > I think that since we are currently only splitting and not taking care > of the actual I/O thread safety, we can move the _perm functions in > I/O, and add a nice TODO to double check their thread safety. :/ I would really, really like to avoid that unless it’s clear that we can make them thread-safe, or that there’s a way to take the BQL in I/O functions to call GS functions.  But the latter still wouldn’t make the perm functions I/O functions.  At most, I’d sort them under common functions. > I mean, if they are not thread-safe after the split it means they are > not thread safe also right now. Yes, sorry I wasn’t clear, I think there’s a pre-existing problem that your series only unveils.  I don’t know whether it has implications in practice yet. Hanna