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

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] qemu: Allow graceful domain destroy



On 22.08.2011 20:31, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 05:33:12PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 09:29:56AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
>>> On 08/22/2011 09:21 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>>> If we had a separate API for sending 'quit' on the monitor, then the
>>>> mgmt app can decide how long to wait for the graceful shutdown of QEMU
>>>> before resorting to the hard virDomainDestroy command. If the app knows
>>>> that there is high I/O load, then it might want to wait for 'quit' to
>>>> complete longer than normal to allow enough time for I/O flush.
>>>
>>> Indeed - that is exactly what I was envisioning with a
>>> virDomainShutdownFlags() call with a flag to request to use the quit
>>> monitor command instead of the default ACPI injection.  The
>>> virDomainShutdownFlags() would have no timeout (it blocks until
>>> successful, or returns failure with no 'quit' command attempted),
>>> and the caller can inject their own unconditional virDomainDestroy()
>>> at whatever timeout they think is appropriate.
>>
>> The virDomainShutdown API is really about guest initiated graceful
>> shutdown. Sending the 'quit' command to QEMU is still *ungraceful*
>> as far as the guest OS is concerned, so I think it is best not to
>> leverage the Shutdown API for 'quit'.
>>
>> I think this probably calls for a virDomainQuit API.
> 
> Actually this entire thread is on the wrong path.
> 
> Both the monitor 'quit' command and 'SIGTERM' in QEMU do exactly the
> same thing. A immediate stop of the guest, but with a graceful shutdown
> of the QEMU process[1].
> 
> In theory there is a difference that sending a signal is asynchronous
> and 'quit' is a synchronous command, but in practice this is not
> relevant, since while executio nof the 'quit' command is synchronous,
> this command only makes the *request* to exit. QEMU won't actually
> exit until the event loop processes the request later.
> 
> There is thus no point in us even bothering with sending 'quit' to
> the QEMU monitor.
> 
> The virDomainDestroy method calls qemuProcessKill which sends SIGTERM,
> waits a short while, then sends SIGKILL. It then calls qemuProcessStop
> to reap the process. This also happens to call qemuProcessKill again
> with SIGTERM, then SIGKILL.
> 
> We need to make this more controllable by apps, by making it possible
> to send just the SIGTERM and not the SIGKILL. Then we can add a new
> flag to virDomainDestroy to request this SIGTERM only behaviour. If
> the guest does not actually die, the mgmt app can then just reinvoke
> virDomainDestroy without the flag, to get the full SIGTERM+SIGKILL
> behaviour we have today.

Sending signal to qemu process is just a part of domain destroying. What
about cleanup code (emitting event, audit log, removing transient
domain, ...)? Can I rely on monitor EOF handling code?  What should be
the return value for this case when only SIGTERM is sent?
> 
> So there's no need for the QEMU monitor to be involved anywhere in
> this.
> 
> Regards,
> Daniel
> 
> [1] The SIGTERM handler and 'quit' command handler both end up just
>     calling qemu_system_shutdown_request().


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