On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 01:07:56PM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 12:12:25PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> >On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 09:02:04AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
> >> On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 05:40:46PM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> >> >* Wei Yang (richardw.y...@linux.intel.com) wrote:
> >> >> Currently, we set PostcopyState blindly to RUNNING, even we found the
> >> >> previous state is not LISTENING. This will lead to a corner case.
> >> >>
> >> >> First let's look at the code flow:
> >> >>
> >> >> qemu_loadvm_state_main()
> >> >> ret = loadvm_process_command()
> >> >> loadvm_postcopy_handle_run()
> >> >> return -1;
> >> >> if (ret < 0) {
> >> >> if (postcopy_state_get() == POSTCOPY_INCOMING_RUNNING)
> >> >> ...
> >> >> }
> >> >>
> >> >> From above snippet, the corner case is loadvm_postcopy_handle_run()
> >> >> always sets state to RUNNING. And then it checks the previous state. If
> >> >> the previous state is not LISTENING, it will return -1. But at this
> >> >> moment, PostcopyState is already been set to RUNNING.
> >> >>
> >> >> Then ret is checked in qemu_loadvm_state_main(), when it is -1
> >> >> PostcopyState is checked. Current logic would pause postcopy and retry
> >> >> if PostcopyState is RUNNING. This is not what we expect, because
> >> >> postcopy is not active yet.
> >> >>
> >> >> This patch makes sure state is set to RUNNING only previous state is
> >> >> LISTENING by introducing an old_state parameter in postcopy_state_set().
> >> >> New state only would be set when current state equals to old_state.
> >> >>
> >> >> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richardw.y...@linux.intel.com>
> >> >
> >> >OK, it's a shame to use a pointer there, but it works.
> >>
> >> You mean second parameter of postcopy_state_set()?
> >>
> >> I don't have a better idea. Or we introduce a new state
> >> POSTCOPY_INCOMING_NOCHECK. Do you feel better with this?
> >
> >Maybe simply fix loadvm_postcopy_handle_run() to set the state after
> >the POSTCOPY_INCOMING_LISTENING check?
> >
>
> Set state back to ps if ps is not POSTCOPY_INCOMING_LISTENING?
>
> Sounds like another option.
Even simpler?
ps = postcopy_state_get();
if (ps != INCOMING)
return -1;
postcopy_state_set(RUNNING);
Thanks,
--
Peter Xu
