From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 528E6629E6 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 14:44:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 48CFB24AD5 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 14:44:31 +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 AB48F24ACC for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 14:44:30 +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 82C3746332 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 14:44:30 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <95357aad-53db-8be7-9699-8cd310ba7633@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2022 14:44:29 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.0 Content-Language: en-US To: =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=c3=bcnbichler?= , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20220221115828.76012-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <20220221115828.76012-2-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <1645524681.xz819fggl9.astroid@nora.none> From: Fabian Ebner In-Reply-To: <1645524681.xz819fggl9.astroid@nora.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.131 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 - Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH v3 guest-common 1/1] guest helpers: add run_with_replication_guard X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2022 13:44:31 -0000 Am 22.02.22 um 11:27 schrieb Fabian Grünbichler: > On February 22, 2022 10:41 am, Fabian Ebner wrote: >> Am 21.02.22 um 12:58 schrieb Fabian Ebner: >>> @@ -82,6 +83,18 @@ sub guest_migration_lock { >>> return $res; >>> } >>> >>> +sub run_with_replication_guard { >>> + my ($vmid, $timeout, $log, $func, @param) = @_; >>> + >>> + my $repl_conf = PVE::ReplicationConfig->new(); >>> + if ($repl_conf->check_for_existing_jobs($vmid, 1)) { >>> + $log->("checking/waiting for active replication..") if $log; >>> + guest_migration_lock($vmid, $timeout, $func, @param); >> >> I wonder if we should unconditionally take the lock? If not, we can race >> with a newly created replication job: >> 1. snapshot deletion starts >> 2. replication job is created >> 3. replication job starts >> 4. snapshot deletion runs into 'dataset is busy' error, because snapshot >> is used by replication > > that could also be solved by lock_config on the guest config when > creating/modifying a replication job, but unconditionally trying to > obtain the lock is also fine by me. > Should be enough to do upon creation and would also fix a race between creating a replication job and adding a non-replicatable disk.