On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 09:22:37AM -0700, Eric Blake wrote:
On 12/02/2011 08:02 AM, Jiri Denemark wrote:
> When QEMU guest finishes its shutdown sequence, qemu stops virtual CPUs
> and when started with -no-shutdown waits for us to kill it using
> SGITERM. Since QEMU is flushing its internal buffers, some time may pass
> before QEMU actually dies. We mistakenly used "paused" state (and
> events) for this which is quite confusing since users may see a domain
> going to pause while they expect it to shutdown. Since we already have
> "shutdown" state with "the domain is being shut down" semantics,
we
> should use it for this state.
>
> However, the state didn't have a corresponding event so I created one
> and called its detail as VIR_DOMAIN_EVENT_SHUTDOWN_FINISHED (guest OS
> finished its shutdown sequence) with the intent to add
> VIR_DOMAIN_EVENT_SHUTDOWN_STARTED in the future if we have a
> sufficiently capable guest agent that can notify us when guest OS starts
> to shutdown.
Not for this patch, but should we use VIR_DOMAIN_EVENT_SHUTDOWN_STARTED
any time we use the virDomainShutdown API to request a graceful
shutdown? That is, by actually changing the state of the domain after a
call to virDomainShutdown, it will be more apparent whether a user has
previously requested shutdown, and if the guest is still running, it
means the guest either didn't react to the ACPI interrupt or else is
taking a long time to shut down.
I don't think we should do this in the lifecycle events. Not least because
emitting "VIR_DOMAIN_EVENT_SHUTDOWN_STARTED" would be very misleading because
a guest OS is free to ignore the ACPI power event. The lifecycle events
should only reflect things that have actually happened to the guest VM
lifecycle & I don't really this counts.
Daniel
--
|:
http://berrange.com -o-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|:
http://libvirt.org -o-
http://virt-manager.org :|
|:
http://autobuild.org -o-
http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|:
http://entangle-photo.org -o-
http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|