On 19.05.25 2:10 PM, Fiona Ebner wrote: > Am 14.05.25 um 21:54 schrieb Kevin Wolf: >> Am 08.05.2025 um 16:09 hat Fiona Ebner geschrieben: >>> In bdrv_graph_wrlock() there is a comment that it uses >>> bdrv_drain_all_begin_nopoll() to make sure that constantly arriving >>> new I/O doesn't cause starvation. The changes from this series are at >>> odds with that, but there doesn't seem to be any (new) test failures. >> >> I don't see why they are at odds with it? Draining an already drained >> node isn't a problem, it just increases the counter without doing >> anything else. > > What I mean is: the introduction of calls to bdrv_drain_all_begin() > before bdrv_drain_all_begin_nopoll() could introduce potential for > starvation when there is constantly arriving new I/O. Or is this not true?
Oh, I guess I know why I was confused now: I thought the comment is the rationale for why the _nopoll variant is used, but the comment is the rationale for the draining itself :) Best Regards, Fiona
