[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH 4/9] mirror: efficiently zero out target

From: Denis V. Lunev
Subject: Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH 4/9] mirror: efficiently zero out target
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 16:18:08 +0300
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1

On 06/15/2016 03:34 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
On 06/15/2016 02:46 AM, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
On 06/15/2016 06:00 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
On 06/14/2016 09:25 AM, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
With a bdrv_co_write_zeroes method on a target BDS zeroes will not be
into the wire. Thus the target could be very efficiently zeroed out.
is should be done with the largest chunk possible.

Probably nicer to track this in bytes.  And do you really want a
hard-coded arbitrary limit, or is it better to live with
MIN_NON_ZERO(target_bs->bl.max_pwrite_zeroes, INT_MAX)?
unfortunately we should. INT_MAX is not aligned as required.
May be we should align INT_MAX properly to fullfill
write_zeroes alignment.

Hmm, may be we can align INT_MAX properly down. OK,
I'll try to do that gracefully.
It's fairly easy to round a max_transfer or max_pwrite_zeroes down to an
aligned value; we already have code in io.c that does that in


@@ -512,7 +513,8 @@ static int mirror_dirty_init(MirrorBlockJob *s)
         end = s->bdev_length / BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE;
   -    if (base == NULL && !bdrv_has_zero_init(target_bs)) {
+    if (base == NULL && !bdrv_has_zero_init(target_bs) &&
+            target_bs->drv->bdrv_co_write_zeroes == NULL) {
Indentation is off, although if checkpatch.pl doesn't complain I guess
it doesn't matter that much.

Why should you care whether the target_bs->drv implements a callback?
Can't you just rely on the normal bdrv_*() functions to do the dirty
work of picking the most efficient implementation without you having to
bypass the block layer?  In fact, isn't that the whole goal of
bdrv_make_zero() - why not call that instead of reimplementing it?
this is the idea of the patch actually. If the callback is not
implemented, we
will have zeroes actually written or send to the wire. In this case
there is
not much sense to do that, the amount of data actually written will be
significantly increased (some areas will be written twice - with zeroes and
with the actual data).

But that's where bdrv_can_write_zeroes_with_unmap() comes in handy - you
can use the public interface to learn whether bdrv_make_zero() will be
efficient or not, without having to probe what the backend supports.

bool bdrv_can_write_zeroes_with_unmap(BlockDriverState *bs)
    BlockDriverInfo bdi;

    if (bs->backing || !(bs->open_flags & BDRV_O_UNMAP)) {
        return false;

    if (bdrv_get_info(bs, &bdi) == 0) {
        return bdi.can_write_zeroes_with_unmap;

    return false;

This function looks rotten. We CAN efficiently zero out
QCOW2 images even with backing store available. Though
the availability of the bdrv_co_write_zeroes does not
guarantee that it is working (NFS, CIFS etc for raw_posix.c).

On the other hand, if callback is implemented, we will have very small
of data in the wire and written actually and thus will have a benefit. I am
trying to avoid very small chunks of data. Here (during the migration
the data is sent with 10 Mb chunks and with takes a LOT of time with NBD.
We can send chunks 1.5 Gb (currently). They occupies the same 26 bytes
of data
on the transport layer.
I agree that we don't want to pre-initialize the device to zero unless
write zeroes is an efficient operation, but I don't think that the
existence of bs->drv->bdrv_co_[p]write_zeroes is the right way to find
that out.

I also think that we need to push harder on the NBD list that under the
new block limits proposal, we WANT to be able to advertise when the new
NBD_CMD_WRITE_ZEROES command will accept a larger size than
NBD_CMD_WRITE (as currently written, the BLOCK_INFO extension proposal
states that if a server advertises a max transaction size to the client,
then the client must honor that size for all commands including
NBD_CMD_WRITE_ZEROES, which would mean your 1.5G request [or my proposed
2G - 4k request] is invalid and would have to be a bunch of 32M requests).

I see...

reply via email to

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