From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A2E3E251
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 25 Sep 2023 12:30:41 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0C43C1E1FB
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 25 Sep 2023 12:30:41 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
[94.136.29.106])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 25 Sep 2023 12:30:39 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9533C48D43
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 25 Sep 2023 12:30:39 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <5d552a06-26ac-f797-655b-72f88a7ab4d0@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2023 12:30:38 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.15.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20230912091617.26590-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
<6ff59a25-0401-41c4-8352-379bc0bafeb3@proxmox.com>
<1d6ae212-9b16-ab4d-e025-07664c35d06a@proxmox.com>
<c21a0808-16e6-4b18-aceb-94206a40f7ad@proxmox.com>
From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <c21a0808-16e6-4b18-aceb-94206a40f7ad@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.656 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy
KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
NICE_REPLY_A -1.473 Looks like a legit reply (A)
SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH qemu-server 1/3] fix #2816: restore: remove
timeout when allocating disks
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2023 10:30:41 -0000
Am 25.09.23 um 10:57 schrieb Dominik Csapak:
> On 9/25/23 10:46, Fiona Ebner wrote:
>> Am 20.09.23 um 13:23 schrieb Dominik Csapak:
>>> On 9/12/23 11:16, Fiona Ebner wrote:
>>>> @@ -7483,14 +7483,11 @@ sub restore_vma_archive {
>>>> $devinfo->{$devname} = { size => $size, dev_id => $dev_id };
>>>> } elsif ($line =~ m/^CTIME: /) {
>>>> # we correctly received the vma config, so we can disable
>>>> - # the timeout now for disk allocation (set to 10 minutes, so
>>>> - # that we always timeout if something goes wrong)
>>>> - alarm(600);
>>>> + # the timeout now for disk allocation
>>
>> I would interpret this comment about disabling of the timeout to be
>> talking about the short 5 second timeout for reading the config.
>
> ok, i interpreted it to be disabling *any* timeout to be able
> to allocate the disks properly, and since there is only one global
> timeout here, selectively disabling one seems strange?
With that interpretation the code would be wrong of course.
> i get what you mean, but maybe that would warrant a comment on the
> function?
> or maybe we should be able to clean up half allocated disks in there
> in case the outer timeout triggers?
AFAICS, my patch didn't change cleanup behavior and what you suggest
already happens? The allocation is within an eval and we call
restore_destroy_volumes() if there was an error during allocation (that
also applies for a timeout error).
>
> in any case, i'd find it good to improve the comment that speaks of
> 'disabling the timeout' that it's meant to only disable the inner 5s one.
>
It can be seen from the code, but feel free to send a patch to improve it ;)
>> AFAICS, we do similar "delay" of the outer timeout in e.g.
>> run_with_timeout(), where it can also take up to $inner_timeout +
>> $outer_timeout seconds to hit the outer timeout.
>
>
> exactly, only our "inner" timeout here is undefined/unlimited because
> disk allocation can take forever?
>
Why treat the operation as having unlimited inner timeout? What is the
benefit? I'd expect our caller to have a good reason to set a timeout if
it does, so why not try to honor it?