[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH 2/2] libxl: do not automatically force detach of block devices


  • To: Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>
  • From: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 12:41:09 +0200
  • Authentication-results: esa5.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.i=none
  • Cc: Paul Durrant <paul@xxxxxxx>, <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Paul Durrant" <pdurrant@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ian Jackson <iwj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Anthony PERARD" <anthony.perard@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 10:41:43 +0000
  • Ironport-sdr: aGPId1rx4HmlDDpMeAKeduKmGJMnaGc733VP/iD3spatDYCeAuMC5YFiPO38z/ShpG+7z5VBkU i14EWHIUyM3dlJYPhUNX9NQpe0sTqbTRxKp5tlOtDlKMGntMYyp5caKvcvYI7QcnRjdMdIzsOX 05Ho+zjvJfONYWO6qGwF+7b3uakxNuxHUvQFvRZpx9U/duNmJ3YS4kG5x09SKwkZju8Y0k7+th japsTO+JXz13gxM935qk3wcS4FyzBnQw8MKiqo4kyCo1FlzswA9mmDBgSsfgJ1MyGy2qxqrM4V d6c=
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>

On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 at 02:19:03PM +0000, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 11:05:37AM +0100, Paul Durrant wrote:
> > From: Paul Durrant <pdurrant@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > The manpage for 'xl' documents that guest co-operation is required for a 
> > (non-
> > forced) block-detach operation and that it may consequently fail. Currently,
> > however, the implementation of generic device removal means that a time-out
> > of a block-detach is being automatically re-tried with the force flag set
> > rather than failing. This patch stops such behaviour.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Paul Durrant <pdurrant@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> I'm two-minded here.
> 
> On the one hand, special-casing VBD in libxl to conform to xl's
> behaviour seems wrong to me.
> 
> On the other hand, if we want to treat all devices the same in libxl,
> libxl should drop its force-removal behaviour all together, and the
> retry behaviour would need to be implemented in xl for all devices
> excepts for VBD. This requires a bit of code churn and, more
> importantly, changes how those device removal APIs behave. In the end
> this effort may not worth it.

I would be worried about those changes, as we would likely have to
also change libvirt or any other downstreams?

> If we go with the patch here, we should document this special case on
> libxl level somehow.
> 
> Anthony and Ian, do you have any opinion on this?

Maybe a new function should be introduced instead, that attempts to
remove a device gracefully and fail otherwise?

Then none of the current APIs would change, and xl could use this new
function to handle VBD removal?

Roger.



 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.