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

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH v2] nodedev: Document the udevEventHandleThread




On 11/2/18 3:48 AM, Erik Skultety wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 01:48:39PM -0400, John Ferlan wrote:
>> Commit cdbe1332 neglected to document the API. So let's add some
>> details about the algorithm and why it was used to help future
>> readers understand the issues encountered. Based largely off a
>> description provided by Erik Skultety <eskultet redhat com>.
> 
> Oh, I missed ^this last sentence. Since you're blaming the commit already and
> the description based on a mailing list thread will not be part of the log, you
> should IMHO drop it.
> 
>>
>> NB: Management of the processing udev device notification is a
>> delicate balance between the udev process, the scheduler, and when
>> exactly the data from/for the socket is received. The balance is
>> particularly important for environments when multiple devices are
>> added into the system more or less simultaneously such as is done
>> for mdev.
> 
> "or SRIOV"
> 
> Note: I can't really remember what I used for reproducer, mdevs or a SRIOV
> card.
> 
>> In these cases scheduler blocking on the udev recv() call
> 
> I don't think scheduler is blocking anywhere, it's rather old libudev blocking
> on the recv call ;)
> 
>> is more noticeable. It's expected that future devices will follow
>> similar algorithms. Even though the algorithm does present some
>> challenges for older OS's (such as Centos 6), trying to rewrite
>> the algorithm to fit both models would be more complex and involve
>> pulling the monitor object out of the private data lockable object
>> and would need to be guarded by a separate lock. Devising such an
>> algorithm to work around issues with older OS's at the expense
>> of more modern OS algorithms in newer event processing code may
>> result in unexpected issues, so the choice is to encourage use
>> of newer OS's with newer udev event processing code.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: John Ferlan <jferlan redhat com>
>> ---
>>
>>  v1: https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2018-October/msg01053.html
>>
>>  Changes are from code review with some minor tweaks/editing as I
>>  went along. Mistakes are my own!
>>
>>  src/node_device/node_device_udev.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 28 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/node_device/node_device_udev.c b/src/node_device/node_device_udev.c
>> index 22897591de..f2c2299d4d 100644
>> --- a/src/node_device/node_device_udev.c
>> +++ b/src/node_device/node_device_udev.c
>> @@ -1591,6 +1591,26 @@ udevEventMonitorSanityCheck(udevEventDataPtr priv,
>>  }
>>
>>
>> +/**
>> + * udevEventHandleThread
>> + * @opaque: unused
>> + *
>> + * Thread to handle the udevEventHandleCallback processing when udev
>> + * tells us there's a device change for us (add, modify, delete, etc).
>> + *
>> + * Once notified there is data to be processed, the actual @device
>> + * data retrieval by libudev may be delayed due to how threads are
>> + * scheduled. In fact, the event loop could be scheduled earlier than
>> + * the handler thread, thus potentially emitting the very same event
>> + * the handler thread is currently trying to process, simply because
>> + * the data hadn't been retrieved from the socket.
>> + *
> 
> ...
> 
>> + * NB: Usage of event based socket algorithm causes some issues with
>> + * older platforms such as CentOS 6 in which the data socket is opened
> 
> ^Sounds a bit too generic, as an event based algorithm is not forced to open a
> socket without O_NONBLOCK - just put something like "older platforms' libudev
> opens sockets without the NONBLOCK flag which might cause issues with event
> based algorithm" or something alike in there.
> 

 * NB: Some older distros, such as CentOS 6, libudev opens sockets
 * without the NONBLOCK flag which might cause issues with event
 * based algorithm. Although the issue can be mitigated by resetting
 * priv->dataReady for each event found; however, the scheduler issues
 * would still come into play.

Should I drop the "Although the issue..." as well? IDC... mainly trying
to avoid the "trap" of patches looking to fix older distros...

Tks -

John


> otherwise looks okay, I don't think a v3 is necessary:
> Reviewed-by: Erik Skultety <eskultet redhat com>
> 
>> + * without the NONBLOCK bit set. That can be avoided by moving the reset
>> + * priv->dataReady to just after the udev_monitor_receive_device; however,
>> + * scheduler issues would still come into play.
>> + */
>>  static void
>>  udevEventHandleThread(void *opaque ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED)
>>  {
>> @@ -1637,6 +1657,9 @@ udevEventHandleThread(void *opaque ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED)
>>                  return;
>>              }
>>
>> +            /* Trying to move the reset of the @priv->dataReady flag to
>> +             * after the udev_monitor_receive_device wouldn't help much
>> +             * due to event mgmt and scheduler timing. */
>>              virObjectLock(priv);
>>              priv->dataReady = false;
>>              virObjectUnlock(priv);
>> @@ -1646,6 +1669,11 @@ udevEventHandleThread(void *opaque ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED)
>>
>>          udevHandleOneDevice(device);
>>          udev_device_unref(device);
>> +
>> +        /* Instead of waiting for the next event after processing @device
>> +         * data, let's keep reading from the udev monitor and only wait
>> +         * for the next event once either a EAGAIN or a EWOULDBLOCK error
>> +         * is encountered. */
>>      }
>>  }
>>
>> --
>> 2.17.2
>>
>> --
>> libvir-list mailing list
>> libvir-list redhat com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list


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