On 12/14/2017 07:43 AM, Nikolay Shirokovskiy wrote: > On 14.12.2017 15:31, John Ferlan wrote: >> >> >> On 12/14/2017 06:58 AM, Nikolay Shirokovskiy wrote: >>> Hi, all. >>> >>> I looked over thread for this particular patch again and found resolution is we: >>> >>> 1. make a more sane cleanup order in libvirtd's main function (already done by [1]). >>> 2. rewrite linked series [2] by introducing event loop closing callback (ok) >>> >>> But there is no resolution on this patch itself if I am not mistaken and >>> it is not pushed too. >>> >>> LINKS >>> >>> [1] [PATCH 0/5] libvirtd: Adjustments to startup and cleanup processing >>> https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2017-November/msg00293.html >> >> The cover letter of this essentially states the cleanup is an >> alternative based upon the review of "this" series' 3/3 patch (IOW: this >> patch). > > Sorry, somehow I lost this impornant notice on my read. I thought [1] > was more about valueable but unrelated to this patch cleanup. > >> >> So I agree w/ Erik - the (last) memory strand that I have left on this >> indicates that the virHashRemoveAll isn't necessary in virNetDaemonClose >> because we've properly order the cleanup with the new patch 4 from [1]. > > Unfortunately it is not and looks like patch 4 is not pushed too. Anyway > it can't help finishing RPC threads in rigth order to hypervisor drivers > cleanup. > Follow the series... Patches 3 & 4 were not accepted, thus patch 5 needed to be adjusted in order to perform the Unref's in the cleanup: code rather than "inline" as patch 3 & 4 had done. >> >>> >>> [2] [PATCH 0/4] libvirtd: fix hang on termination in qemu driver >>> https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2017-October/msg01134.html >>> >> >> I responded to this series' cover letter with: >> >> https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2017-November/msg00455.html >> >> in order to attempt to move the conversations found in "this" series to >> that series rather than clouding "this" series with information >> belonging to that series. >> >> So the question *now* is - did you find a condition/case with [1] >> patches applied, but [2] patches not applied (IOW: current top) where >> something isn't being Unref'd properly? > > In a sense yes - virStateCleanup is still called before RPC threads are joined > which causes crashes. It is not fixed by [1]. > > Nikolay > Now you've lost me. What are the back traces? and now does one reasonably reproduce? Are you trying to advocate here for [2] to be reviewed/accepted? John >> >> John >> >>> >>> Nikolay >>> >>> On 30.10.2017 14:14, John Ferlan wrote: >>>> From: Nikolay Shirokovskiy <nshirokovskiy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> The problem is incorrect order of qemu driver shutdown and shutdown >>>> of netserver threads that serve client requests (thru qemu driver >>>> particularly). >>>> >>>> Net server threads are shutdown upon dispose which is triggered >>>> by last daemon object unref at the end of main function. At the same >>>> time qemu driver is shutdown earlier in virStateCleanup. As a result >>>> netserver threads see invalid driver object in the middle of request >>>> processing. >>>> >>>> Let's move shutting down netserver threads earlier to virNetDaemonClose. >>>> >>>> Note: order of last daemon unref and virStateCleanup >>>> is introduced in 85c3a182 for a valid reason. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: John Ferlan <jferlan@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> src/rpc/virnetdaemon.c | 1 + >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/src/rpc/virnetdaemon.c b/src/rpc/virnetdaemon.c >>>> index 8c21414897..33bd8e3b06 100644 >>>> --- a/src/rpc/virnetdaemon.c >>>> +++ b/src/rpc/virnetdaemon.c >>>> @@ -881,6 +881,7 @@ virNetDaemonClose(virNetDaemonPtr dmn) >>>> virObjectLock(dmn); >>>> >>>> virHashForEach(dmn->servers, daemonServerClose, NULL); >>>> + virHashRemoveAll(dmn->servers); >>>> >>>> virObjectUnlock(dmn); >>>> } >>>> -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
