On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 17:00:38 -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 09/13/2011 10:20 AM, Jiri Denemark wrote:
> > Ever since we introduced fake reboot, we call qemuProcessKill as a
> > reaction to SHUTDOWN event. Unfortunately, qemu doesn't guarantee it
> > flushed all internal buffers before sending SHUTDOWN, in which case
> > killing the process forcibly may result in (virtual) disk corruption.
> >
> > By sending SIGQUIT instead of SIGTERM followed by SIGKILL we tell qemu
> > to flush all buffers and exit. Once qemu exits, we will see an EOF on
> > monitor connection and tear down the domain. In case qemu ignores
> > SIGQUIT or just hangs there, the process stays running but that's not
> > any different from a possible hang anytime during the shutdown process
> > so I think it's just fine.
>
> This affects virDomainShutdown, virDomainReboot, and guest-initiated
> shutdown, but not virDomainDestroy, right?
Yes.
> > ---
> > src/qemu/qemu_process.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++--
> > src/qemu/qemu_process.h | 1 +
> > 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_process.c b/src/qemu/qemu_process.c
> > index f8a8475..8a12e2a 100644
> > --- a/src/qemu/qemu_process.c
> > +++ b/src/qemu/qemu_process.c
> > @@ -445,12 +445,12 @@ qemuProcessHandleShutdown(qemuMonitorPtr mon ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED,
> > qemuProcessFakeReboot,
> > vm)< 0) {
> > VIR_ERROR(_("Failed to create reboot thread, killing domain"));
> > - qemuProcessKill(vm);
> > + qemuProcessQuit(vm);
>
> Is this hunk right? If we're that bad off that we can't create a
> thread, killing might actually be better.
I was thinking that if we can't reboot (because we cannot create the thread),
we should just shutdown normally, not kill the domain without giving qemu a
chance to flush buffers.
Jirka
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list