On 12/04/2018 13:11, Kevin Wolf wrote: >> Well, there is one gotcha: bdrv_ref protects against disappearance, but >> bdrv_ref/bdrv_unref are not thread-safe. Am I missing something else? > > Apart from the above, if we do an extra bdrv_ref/unref we'd also have > to keep track of all the nodes that we've referenced so that we unref > the same nodes again, even if the graph has changes. > > So essentially you'd be introducing a new list of BDSes that we have to > manage and then check for every reachable node whether it's already in > that list or not, and for every node in the list whether it's still > reachable.
That would be a hash table (a set), not a list, so easy to check. But the thread-safety is a bigger issue. The problem I have is that there is a direction through which I/O flows (parent-to-child), so why can't draining follow that natural direction. Having to check for the parents' I/O, while draining the child, seems wrong. Perhaps we can't help it, but I cannot understand the reason. Paolo
