| Message ID | 1351519903-26607-8-git-send-email-quintela@redhat.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com> writes: > Move all the writes to the migration_thread, and make writings > blocking. Notice that are still using the iothread for everything > that we do. [...] > diff --git a/qemu-sockets.c b/qemu-sockets.c > index cfed9c5..61b6e95 100644 > --- a/qemu-sockets.c > +++ b/qemu-sockets.c > @@ -276,9 +276,6 @@ static int inet_connect_addr(struct addrinfo *addr, bool *in_progress, > return -1; > } > qemu_setsockopt(sock, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, &on, sizeof(on)); > - if (connect_state != NULL) { > - socket_set_nonblock(sock); > - } > /* connect to peer */ > do { > rc = 0; > @@ -732,7 +729,6 @@ int unix_connect_opts(QemuOpts *opts, Error **errp, > connect_state = g_malloc0(sizeof(*connect_state)); > connect_state->callback = callback; > connect_state->opaque = opaque; > - socket_set_nonblock(sock); > } > > memset(&un, 0, sizeof(un)); Doesn't this break inet_nonblocking_connect() and unix_nonblocking_connect()? In your cover letter, you wrote: Note: Writes has become blocking, and I have to change the "remove" the feature now in qemu-sockets.c. Checked that migration was the only user of that feature. If new users appear, they just need to add the socket_set_nonblock() by hand. Yes, migration-{tcp,unix} are their only users, but if they want a blocking socket now, why not use inet_connect() and unix_connect()? New users can't "just add socket_set_nonblock()". They'd have to add it right where you deleted it: between qemu_socket() and connect(). Else the connect() is blocking. [...]
Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> wrote: > Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com> writes: > >> Move all the writes to the migration_thread, and make writings >> blocking. Notice that are still using the iothread for everything >> that we do. > [...] >> diff --git a/qemu-sockets.c b/qemu-sockets.c >> index cfed9c5..61b6e95 100644 >> --- a/qemu-sockets.c >> +++ b/qemu-sockets.c >> @@ -276,9 +276,6 @@ static int inet_connect_addr(struct addrinfo *addr, bool *in_progress, >> return -1; >> } >> qemu_setsockopt(sock, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, &on, sizeof(on)); >> - if (connect_state != NULL) { >> - socket_set_nonblock(sock); >> - } >> /* connect to peer */ >> do { >> rc = 0; >> @@ -732,7 +729,6 @@ int unix_connect_opts(QemuOpts *opts, Error **errp, >> connect_state = g_malloc0(sizeof(*connect_state)); >> connect_state->callback = callback; >> connect_state->opaque = opaque; >> - socket_set_nonblock(sock); >> } >> >> memset(&un, 0, sizeof(un)); > > Doesn't this break inet_nonblocking_connect() and > unix_nonblocking_connect()? > > In your cover letter, you wrote: > > Note: Writes has become blocking, and I have to change the "remove" > the feature now in qemu-sockets.c. Checked that migration was the > only user of that feature. If new users appear, they just need to add > the socket_set_nonblock() by hand. > > Yes, migration-{tcp,unix} are their only users, but if they want a > blocking socket now, why not use inet_connect() and unix_connect()? > > New users can't "just add socket_set_nonblock()". They'd have to add it > right where you deleted it: between qemu_socket() and connect(). Else > the connect() is blocking. Grrr. So, is there any way to make a connection that is non-blocking, but then writes are blocking? Later, Juan.
Il 29/10/2012 18:32, Juan Quintela ha scritto: >> > New users can't "just add socket_set_nonblock()". They'd have to add it >> > right where you deleted it: between qemu_socket() and connect(). Else >> > the connect() is blocking. > Grrr. > > So, is there any way to make a connection that is non-blocking, but then > writes are blocking? socket_set_block. Paolo
Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com> writes: > Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> wrote: >> Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com> writes: >> >>> Move all the writes to the migration_thread, and make writings >>> blocking. Notice that are still using the iothread for everything >>> that we do. >> [...] >>> diff --git a/qemu-sockets.c b/qemu-sockets.c >>> index cfed9c5..61b6e95 100644 >>> --- a/qemu-sockets.c >>> +++ b/qemu-sockets.c >>> @@ -276,9 +276,6 @@ static int inet_connect_addr(struct addrinfo *addr, bool *in_progress, >>> return -1; >>> } >>> qemu_setsockopt(sock, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, &on, sizeof(on)); >>> - if (connect_state != NULL) { >>> - socket_set_nonblock(sock); >>> - } >>> /* connect to peer */ >>> do { >>> rc = 0; >>> @@ -732,7 +729,6 @@ int unix_connect_opts(QemuOpts *opts, Error **errp, >>> connect_state = g_malloc0(sizeof(*connect_state)); >>> connect_state->callback = callback; >>> connect_state->opaque = opaque; >>> - socket_set_nonblock(sock); >>> } >>> >>> memset(&un, 0, sizeof(un)); >> >> Doesn't this break inet_nonblocking_connect() and >> unix_nonblocking_connect()? >> >> In your cover letter, you wrote: >> >> Note: Writes has become blocking, and I have to change the "remove" >> the feature now in qemu-sockets.c. Checked that migration was the >> only user of that feature. If new users appear, they just need to add >> the socket_set_nonblock() by hand. >> >> Yes, migration-{tcp,unix} are their only users, but if they want a >> blocking socket now, why not use inet_connect() and unix_connect()? >> >> New users can't "just add socket_set_nonblock()". They'd have to add it >> right where you deleted it: between qemu_socket() and connect(). Else >> the connect() is blocking. > > Grrr. > > So, is there any way to make a connection that is non-blocking, but then > writes are blocking? Which operations on the migration socket do you need to block, and which ones do you need not to block? If connect() should block, use inet_connect() / unix_connect(). The returned socket will be blocking. You can then switch to non-blocking mode (and possibly back) at appropriate times. If connect() should not block, use inet_nonblocking_connect() and so forth.
Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> wrote: > Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com> writes: > >> Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> wrote: >>> Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com> writes: >>> >>>> Move all the writes to the migration_thread, and make writings >>>> blocking. Notice that are still using the iothread for everything >>>> that we do. >>> [...] >>>> diff --git a/qemu-sockets.c b/qemu-sockets.c >>>> index cfed9c5..61b6e95 100644 >>>> --- a/qemu-sockets.c >>>> +++ b/qemu-sockets.c >>>> @@ -276,9 +276,6 @@ static int inet_connect_addr(struct addrinfo *addr, bool *in_progress, >>>> return -1; >>>> } >>>> qemu_setsockopt(sock, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, &on, sizeof(on)); >>>> - if (connect_state != NULL) { >>>> - socket_set_nonblock(sock); >>>> - } >>>> /* connect to peer */ >>>> do { >>>> rc = 0; >>>> @@ -732,7 +729,6 @@ int unix_connect_opts(QemuOpts *opts, Error **errp, >>>> connect_state = g_malloc0(sizeof(*connect_state)); >>>> connect_state->callback = callback; >>>> connect_state->opaque = opaque; >>>> - socket_set_nonblock(sock); >>>> } >>>> >>>> memset(&un, 0, sizeof(un)); >>> >>> Doesn't this break inet_nonblocking_connect() and >>> unix_nonblocking_connect()? >>> >>> In your cover letter, you wrote: >>> >>> Note: Writes has become blocking, and I have to change the "remove" >>> the feature now in qemu-sockets.c. Checked that migration was the >>> only user of that feature. If new users appear, they just need to add >>> the socket_set_nonblock() by hand. >>> >>> Yes, migration-{tcp,unix} are their only users, but if they want a >>> blocking socket now, why not use inet_connect() and unix_connect()? >>> >>> New users can't "just add socket_set_nonblock()". They'd have to add it >>> right where you deleted it: between qemu_socket() and connect(). Else >>> the connect() is blocking. >> >> Grrr. >> >> So, is there any way to make a connection that is non-blocking, but then >> writes are blocking? > > Which operations on the migration socket do you need to block, and which > ones do you need not to block? connect: not blocking (done on the iothread) writes: blocking, done in the migration thread. I think thet socket_set_block() that paolo says is the right solution. > > If connect() should block, use inet_connect() / unix_connect(). The > returned socket will be blocking. You can then switch to non-blocking > mode (and possibly back) at appropriate times. > > If connect() should not block, use inet_nonblocking_connect() and so > forth. Thanks, Juan.
Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com> writes: > Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> wrote: >> Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com> writes: >> >>> Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> Move all the writes to the migration_thread, and make writings >>>>> blocking. Notice that are still using the iothread for everything >>>>> that we do. >>>> [...] >>>>> diff --git a/qemu-sockets.c b/qemu-sockets.c >>>>> index cfed9c5..61b6e95 100644 >>>>> --- a/qemu-sockets.c >>>>> +++ b/qemu-sockets.c >>>>> @@ -276,9 +276,6 @@ static int inet_connect_addr(struct addrinfo *addr, bool *in_progress, >>>>> return -1; >>>>> } >>>>> qemu_setsockopt(sock, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, &on, sizeof(on)); >>>>> - if (connect_state != NULL) { >>>>> - socket_set_nonblock(sock); >>>>> - } >>>>> /* connect to peer */ >>>>> do { >>>>> rc = 0; >>>>> @@ -732,7 +729,6 @@ int unix_connect_opts(QemuOpts *opts, Error **errp, >>>>> connect_state = g_malloc0(sizeof(*connect_state)); >>>>> connect_state->callback = callback; >>>>> connect_state->opaque = opaque; >>>>> - socket_set_nonblock(sock); >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> memset(&un, 0, sizeof(un)); >>>> >>>> Doesn't this break inet_nonblocking_connect() and >>>> unix_nonblocking_connect()? >>>> >>>> In your cover letter, you wrote: >>>> >>>> Note: Writes has become blocking, and I have to change the "remove" >>>> the feature now in qemu-sockets.c. Checked that migration was the >>>> only user of that feature. If new users appear, they just need to add >>>> the socket_set_nonblock() by hand. >>>> >>>> Yes, migration-{tcp,unix} are their only users, but if they want a >>>> blocking socket now, why not use inet_connect() and unix_connect()? >>>> >>>> New users can't "just add socket_set_nonblock()". They'd have to add it >>>> right where you deleted it: between qemu_socket() and connect(). Else >>>> the connect() is blocking. >>> >>> Grrr. >>> >>> So, is there any way to make a connection that is non-blocking, but then >>> writes are blocking? >> >> Which operations on the migration socket do you need to block, and which >> ones do you need not to block? > > connect: not blocking (done on the iothread) > writes: blocking, done in the migration thread. > > I think thet socket_set_block() that paolo says is the right solution. Sounds good. By the way, I probably would've missed this had you not pointed to it in the cover letter. Smart move on your part.
Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> wrote: > Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>> Doesn't this break inet_nonblocking_connect() and >>>>> unix_nonblocking_connect()? >>>>> >>>>> In your cover letter, you wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Note: Writes has become blocking, and I have to change the "remove" >>>>> the feature now in qemu-sockets.c. Checked that migration was the >>>>> only user of that feature. If new users appear, they just need to add >>>>> the socket_set_nonblock() by hand. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, migration-{tcp,unix} are their only users, but if they want a >>>>> blocking socket now, why not use inet_connect() and unix_connect()? >>>>> >>>>> New users can't "just add socket_set_nonblock()". They'd have to add it >>>>> right where you deleted it: between qemu_socket() and connect(). Else >>>>> the connect() is blocking. >>>> >>>> Grrr. >>>> >>>> So, is there any way to make a connection that is non-blocking, but then >>>> writes are blocking? >>> >>> Which operations on the migration socket do you need to block, and which >>> ones do you need not to block? >> >> connect: not blocking (done on the iothread) >> writes: blocking, done in the migration thread. >> >> I think thet socket_set_block() that paolo says is the right solution. > > Sounds good. > > By the way, I probably would've missed this had you not pointed to it in > the cover letter. Smart move on your part. I knew somebody would have noticed, so it was supposed to be a "priori" apologize .... thanks, Juan.
diff --git a/migration-exec.c b/migration-exec.c index 519af57..ecc0f00 100644 --- a/migration-exec.c +++ b/migration-exec.c @@ -72,7 +72,6 @@ void exec_start_outgoing_migration(MigrationState *s, const char *command, Error s->fd = fileno(f); assert(s->fd != -1); - socket_set_nonblock(s->fd); s->opaque = qemu_popen(f, "w"); diff --git a/migration-fd.c b/migration-fd.c index ce6932d..9398b91 100644 --- a/migration-fd.c +++ b/migration-fd.c @@ -80,7 +80,6 @@ void fd_start_outgoing_migration(MigrationState *s, const char *fdname, Error ** return; } - fcntl(s->fd, F_SETFL, O_NONBLOCK); s->get_error = fd_errno; s->write = fd_write; s->close = fd_close; diff --git a/migration.c b/migration.c index d5c178d..23a7974 100644 --- a/migration.c +++ b/migration.c @@ -244,10 +244,6 @@ static int migrate_fd_cleanup(MigrationState *s) { int ret = 0; - if (s->fd != -1) { - qemu_set_fd_handler2(s->fd, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL); - } - if (s->file) { DPRINTF("closing file\n"); ret = qemu_fclose(s->file); @@ -282,18 +278,6 @@ static void migrate_fd_completed(MigrationState *s) notifier_list_notify(&migration_state_notifiers, s); } -static void migrate_fd_put_notify(void *opaque) -{ - MigrationState *s = opaque; - int ret; - - qemu_set_fd_handler2(s->fd, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL); - ret = qemu_file_put_notify(s->file); - if (ret) { - migrate_fd_error(s); - } -} - ssize_t migrate_fd_put_buffer(MigrationState *s, const void *data, size_t size) { @@ -310,10 +294,6 @@ ssize_t migrate_fd_put_buffer(MigrationState *s, const void *data, if (ret == -1) ret = -(s->get_error(s)); - if (ret == -EAGAIN) { - qemu_set_fd_handler2(s->fd, NULL, NULL, migrate_fd_put_notify, s); - } - return ret; } @@ -409,7 +389,6 @@ int migrate_fd_wait_for_unfreeze(MigrationState *s) int migrate_fd_close(MigrationState *s) { - qemu_set_fd_handler2(s->fd, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL); return s->close(s); } diff --git a/qemu-file.h b/qemu-file.h index 9c8985b..e88892c 100644 --- a/qemu-file.h +++ b/qemu-file.h @@ -104,11 +104,6 @@ int64_t qemu_file_set_rate_limit(QEMUFile *f, int64_t new_rate); int64_t qemu_file_get_rate_limit(QEMUFile *f); int qemu_file_get_error(QEMUFile *f); -/* Try to send any outstanding data. This function is useful when output is - * halted due to rate limiting or EAGAIN errors occur as it can be used to - * resume output. */ -int qemu_file_put_notify(QEMUFile *f); - static inline void qemu_put_be64s(QEMUFile *f, const uint64_t *pv) { qemu_put_be64(f, *pv); diff --git a/qemu-sockets.c b/qemu-sockets.c index cfed9c5..61b6e95 100644 --- a/qemu-sockets.c +++ b/qemu-sockets.c @@ -276,9 +276,6 @@ static int inet_connect_addr(struct addrinfo *addr, bool *in_progress, return -1; } qemu_setsockopt(sock, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, &on, sizeof(on)); - if (connect_state != NULL) { - socket_set_nonblock(sock); - } /* connect to peer */ do { rc = 0; @@ -732,7 +729,6 @@ int unix_connect_opts(QemuOpts *opts, Error **errp, connect_state = g_malloc0(sizeof(*connect_state)); connect_state->callback = callback; connect_state->opaque = opaque; - socket_set_nonblock(sock); } memset(&un, 0, sizeof(un)); diff --git a/savevm.c b/savevm.c index b080d37..69f1768 100644 --- a/savevm.c +++ b/savevm.c @@ -523,11 +523,6 @@ int qemu_fclose(QEMUFile *f) return ret; } -int qemu_file_put_notify(QEMUFile *f) -{ - return f->put_buffer(f->opaque, NULL, 0, 0); -} - void qemu_put_buffer(QEMUFile *f, const uint8_t *buf, int size) { int l;
Move all the writes to the migration_thread, and make writings blocking. Notice that are still using the iothread for everything that we do. Signed-off-by: Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com> --- migration-exec.c | 1 - migration-fd.c | 1 - migration.c | 21 --------------------- qemu-file.h | 5 ----- qemu-sockets.c | 4 ---- savevm.c | 5 ----- 6 files changed, 37 deletions(-)