[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bbf958af-d435-3a56-1e91-e068125a9ce7@suse.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 14:57:49 +0100
From: Jürgen Groß <jgross@...e.com>
To: Paul Durrant <pdurrant@...zon.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org
Cc: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@...rix.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] xen-blkback: support dynamic unbind/bind
On 05.12.19 15:01, Paul Durrant wrote:
> By simply re-attaching to shared rings during connect_ring() rather than
> assuming they are freshly allocated (i.e assuming the counters are zero)
> it is possible for vbd instances to be unbound and re-bound from and to
> (respectively) a running guest.
>
> This has been tested by running:
>
> while true; do dd if=/dev/urandom of=test.img bs=1M count=1024; done
>
> in a PV guest whilst running:
>
> while true;
> do echo vbd-$DOMID-$VBD >unbind;
> echo unbound;
> sleep 5;
> echo vbd-$DOMID-$VBD >bind;
> echo bound;
> sleep 3;
> done
>
> in dom0 from /sys/bus/xen-backend/drivers/vbd to continuously unbind and
> re-bind its system disk image.
Could you do the same test with mixed reads/writes and verification of
the read/written data, please? A write-only test is not _that_
convincing regarding correctness. It only proves the guest is not
crashing.
I'm fine with the general approach, though.
Juergen
Powered by blists - more mailing lists