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 B3EDBC433EF for ; Wed, 17 Nov 2021 11:34:38 +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 3349361BD3 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 2021 11:34:38 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 3349361BD3 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]:57094 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mnJD3-0002UR-8U for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Wed, 17 Nov 2021 06:34:37 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:38790) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mnJC7-0001P0-9J for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 17 Nov 2021 06:33:39 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.129.124]:52846) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mnJC3-0002yk-Id for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 17 Nov 2021 06:33:38 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1637148814; 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=1fpeIRFG1K0VOJ3nbKX8D3q1Ku/qT3iz/Q+Dc5ZCFKg=; b=PZtFwW66SbdLjatXnSRw2gTwZEtmYPdt6vP7yQP9mAtfPNyhF8WPse6IbwG9Ibb/fDc8l4 GoGrQmOrA0899UaXE9NXzUTaKd7UcVczj3Ep/ra+8pBpnCT1Mqffs1bI8U49MxGUrUVj4Z Nxs/X7fla8Bq1AB8KrREmko3xPQCQqg= Received: from mail-ed1-f69.google.com (mail-ed1-f69.google.com [209.85.208.69]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-329-e92rhKd5M2CJT7YxySrmew-1; Wed, 17 Nov 2021 06:33:33 -0500 X-MC-Unique: e92rhKd5M2CJT7YxySrmew-1 Received: by mail-ed1-f69.google.com with SMTP id w4-20020aa7cb44000000b003e7c0f7cfffso1892767edt.2 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 2021 03:33:32 -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=1fpeIRFG1K0VOJ3nbKX8D3q1Ku/qT3iz/Q+Dc5ZCFKg=; b=8OiznygbJI1xwsZa9/TEbCO87vwWhWcPfuVeZs6PSdYOe/kOA+aptoEBTw+CF/f54Y ZXks/HDw19P3FUkCnmNua0koCjjGNzsELMXA/8Nvlkq7NbjWI3s64DnHfYTn3rbkMqet 3OT31TF9h8aFNrTaiEFarXRkjeMs9RaZkUxkjwjWg/DAgPx6DfdS6dgKnvqE+sysHURG I+eFAZDHjHhfWplNMYgeOG+Hy9a0cgmUVTlxfs4kb8QjTMMTq11NG7toeAVBElajf/MJ Y8ATbMXz1Gf8ZmUlnQKSvK9jMw3Cl3klApWtbqWzxr+xMvxdP4pK/Ta2Sd2C0EsDGRoT RvCw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531po87qutNl52nbS79J7WzigIN0az3kPxEugyEB3kFDtxv4nVLs nlb3QC9RwT2DRTTyZXnGgzPjn3/hURTKDfpWLUnmauYlsNyACutF8fMN4XQSpzAFXWV+PX8VL6D q2vuieE9EpZo+sK0= X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:d89:: with SMTP id go9mr21201042ejc.330.1637148811785; Wed, 17 Nov 2021 03:33:31 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwWsgmEGkuRALghKxkubrpUbR6TONvTkJsuYxaK3Df7w8+ooS20LZ+rja03zBhlAe4kqafy6Q== X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:d89:: with SMTP id go9mr21200965ejc.330.1637148811392; Wed, 17 Nov 2021 03:33:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPV6:2a04:ee41:4:31cb:e591:1e1e:abde:a8f1? ([2a04:ee41:4:31cb:e591:1e1e:abde:a8f1]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n1sm10668222edf.45.2021.11.17.03.33.30 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 17 Nov 2021 03:33:30 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <197a79f6-c9c2-d73b-7e38-e88ccc2e0a57@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2021 12:33:29 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.2.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 20/25] block_int-common.h: assertion in the callers of BlockDriver function pointers To: Hanna Reitz , qemu-block@nongnu.org References: <20211025101735.2060852-1-eesposit@redhat.com> <20211025101735.2060852-21-eesposit@redhat.com> <83cf9336-e37d-bf48-961c-8103b5c7bc62@redhat.com> From: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito In-Reply-To: <83cf9336-e37d-bf48-961c-8103b5c7bc62@redhat.com> Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=eesposit@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=170.10.129.124; envelope-from=eesposit@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_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=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 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. (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 mean, if they are not thread-safe after the split it means they are not thread safe also right now. Emanuele