qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/2] Make cow_co_is_allocated and cow_update_bit


From: Charlie Shepherd
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/2] Make cow_co_is_allocated and cow_update_bitmap more efficient
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 11:31:05 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8

On 21/08/2013 10:19, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 21/08/2013 11:11, Charlie Shepherd ha scritto:
It still seems
worthwhile to me to be as efficient as possible, I guess that means
processing a sector's worth of metadata at a time?
Yes, that's what my patches do.  My is_allocated and flushing strategy +
something like your replacement of cow_set_bit (just without the
unbounded allocation) should be pretty good.

Perhaps you can use a cow_co_is_allocated loop after writing the data.
If it returns 0, you flush (the first time only) and call your
cow_update_bitmap.  Then you advance by num_same sectors and go on until
you did all the nb_sectors.  The disadvantage is that it does two reads
(one in cow_co_is_allocated, one in cow_update_bitmap).  The advantage
is that unbounded allocation goes away because cow_co_is_allocated will
never consider more than a sector of bitmap data.  And you can reuse all
your cow_update_bitmap code.

Agreed. But can the two functions not share the same read data? As in:

cow_is_allocated(char *buf) {
  return test_bits(buf)
}

cow_co_is_allocated(Bdrv *b) {
  char sector[SECTOR_SIZE]
  bdrv_read(b, sector, sector_num)
  return cow_is_allocated(sector)
}

cow_update_bitmap(Bdrv *b) {
  while (sector) {
    char buf[SECTOR_SIZE]
    bdrv_read(b, buf, sector_num)
    if (cow_is_allocated(buf)) {
        if (!flushed)
            bdrv_flush()
        cow_update_bitmap_sector(buf)
        bdrv_write(buf)
    }
  }
}

To be as efficient as possible, you could keep a memory copy of the
bitmap, so that you only have to do writes, not reads.  The memory copy
would be somewhat expensive of course but perhaps reasonable (256M of
memory for a 1T image).  The largest cost would be loading the bitmap
from memory at startup.  But that can be done later.

Yes I considered that option too. I guess it can be considered as another patch, with the performance implicated measured against the results of this patch.


Charlie



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]