Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 06/35] libxl: Use ev_qmp for switch_qemu_xen_logdirty

[Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Anthony PERARD writes ("Re: [PATCH 06/35] libxl: Use ev_qmp for 
switch_qemu_xen_logdirty"):
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 05:52:24PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I hate to suggest this at this stage, but: maybe the timeout could be
> > incorporated into libxl__ev_qmp ?
> > 
> > I think every libxl__qmp caller is going to need a timeout ?
> 
> Yes, every user of libxl__ev_qmp should have a timeout set up. But
> there are different way to set it up. When we have several command to
> send via QMP should we have a new timeout for every command or set only
> one when sending the first command, and only stopping the timeout when
> the last command's response have been received? In this patch series
> I've choose the second option.
> 
> I can see several cases:
> - One QMP command
>   -> easy, one timeout for it.
> - several commands, related or not.
>   -> one timeout per command? or one timeout which cover all of them?
>      one per commands means that a bad qemu could delay the operation
>      several time longer than if there were a single timeout covering
>      all the commands.
> - other slow operation are done beside a qmp command
>   -> In this case, it might not be practical to have a timeout attach
>      to the qmp command, we are going to need a timeout for the other
>      operations.

Hmmm.  Yes.  You have obviously considered this better than me.q

> I guess we could try to optimise the simpler case when there is only one
> qmp operation, because that's the most common, but allow to send
> commands without having libxl__qmp setting a timeout.

That would be nice.  I think this is a nice-to-have, not a blocker.

Thanks,
Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel