From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, jfreimann@redhat.com
Cc: thuth@redhat.com, alex.bennee@linaro.org, quintela@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tests/migration: Print some debug on bad status
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 18:38:17 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191108183817.GB2878@work-vm> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <157323517815.7743.2882918933706185467@37313f22b938>
Hi Jens,
the unplug failover stuff is triggering an assertion occasionally on
aarch64; but
a) I'm not sure the right way to fix it
b) And I'm out for a little over a week
so...
* no-reply@patchew.org (no-reply@patchew.org) wrote:
> Patchew URL: https://patchew.org/QEMU/20191108104307.125020-1-dgilbert@redhat.com/
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> This series failed the docker-quick@centos7 build test. Please find the testing commands and
> their output below. If you have Docker installed, you can probably reproduce it
> locally.
>
> === TEST SCRIPT BEGIN ===
> #!/bin/bash
> make docker-image-centos7 V=1 NETWORK=1
> time make docker-test-quick@centos7 SHOW_ENV=1 J=14 NETWORK=1
> === TEST SCRIPT END ===
>
> TEST check-unit: tests/test-bdrv-drain
> wait_for_migration_fail: unexpected status status=wait-unplug allow_active=1
In tests/migration-test.c we've got wait_for_migration_fail, and it's
expecting the state to be any one of:
setup, failed or maybe active
but it's getting surprised by seeing a 'wait-unplug'
So the question is should we see a wait-unplug?
the migration code has:
if (qemu_savevm_nr_failover_devices()) {
migrate_set_state(&s->state, MIGRATION_STATUS_SETUP,
MIGRATION_STATUS_WAIT_UNPLUG);
Should qemu_savevm_nr_failover_devices() be true?
On aarch64 it seems to have a virtio-net device by default
and qemu_savevm_nr_failover_devices() checks for devices
having dev_unplug_pending but doesn't call it.
I see two fixes but am not sure which is right:
a) Add 'wait-unplug' to the wait_for_migration_fail
(easy)
b) Actually call dev_unplug_pending in qemu_savevm_nr_failover_devices
so that on a guest which has a virtio-net, but no failover device,
the state isn't entered.
I think (b) is better, since we shouldn't be exposing the wait-unplug
event on setups that don't expect it; but I don't understand the unplug
enough to know if this is a safe change.
Thoughts?
Dave
--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilbert@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-11-08 18:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-11-08 10:43 [PATCH] tests/migration: Print some debug on bad status Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git)
2019-11-08 11:49 ` Thomas Huth
2019-11-08 12:01 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2019-11-08 17:46 ` no-reply
2019-11-08 18:38 ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert [this message]
2019-11-11 10:15 ` Jens Freimann
2019-11-08 17:47 ` no-reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20191108183817.GB2878@work-vm \
--to=dgilbert@redhat.com \
--cc=alex.bennee@linaro.org \
--cc=jfreimann@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=quintela@redhat.com \
--cc=thuth@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.