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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E769D65960 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 8 Mar 2022 10:13:03 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id DE56024F for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 8 Mar 2022 10:12:33 +0100 (CET) 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 id 184DE245 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 8 Mar 2022 10:12:33 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id BBAD7463BF; Tue, 8 Mar 2022 10:12:32 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <eaf567ab-0e0c-6061-9a57-b60997fc6747@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2022 10:12:26 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.1 Content-Language: en-US To: Mark Schouten <mark@tuxis.nl>, Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> References: <20211123115949.2462727-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <5CC63593-424B-4439-93FB-BFFD6B087952@tuxis.nl> From: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <5CC63593-424B-4439-93FB-BFFD6B087952@tuxis.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.125 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 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 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [proxmox.com] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH kernel] Backport two io-wq fixes relevant for io_uring 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: Tue, 08 Mar 2022 09:13:03 -0000 Am 07.03.22 um 15:51 schrieb Mark Schouten: > Hi, > > Sorry for getting back on this thread after a few months, but is the Windows-case mentioned here the case that is discussed in this forum-thread: > https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/windows-vms-stuck-on-boot-after-proxmox-upgrade-to-7-0.100744/page-3 <https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/windows-vms-stuck-on-boot-after-proxmox-upgrade-to-7-0.100744/page-3> > > ? Hi, the symptoms there sound rather different. The issue addressed by this patch was about a QEMU process getting completely stuck on I/O while the VM was live already. "completely" meant that e.g. connecting for the display also would fail and there would be messages like VM 182 qmp command failed - VM 182 qmp command 'query-proxmox-support' failed - unable to connect to VM 182 qmp socket - timeout after 31 retries in the syslog. The issue described in the forum thread reads like it happens only upon reboot from inside the guest and nobody mentioned messages like the above. > > If so, should this be investigated further or are there other issues? I have personally not had the issue mentioned in the forum, but quite a few people seem to be suffering from issues with Windows VMs, which is currently holding us back from upgrading from 6.x to 7.x on a whole bunch of customer clusters. I also haven't seen the issue myself yet and haven't heard from any colleagues either. Without a reproducer, it's very difficult to debug. > > Thanks, > > — > Mark Schouten, CTO > Tuxis B.V. > mark@tuxis.nl