[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] callout to *file in bdrv_co_get_block_stat

From: Peter Lieven
Subject: Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] callout to *file in bdrv_co_get_block_status
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 14:13:13 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1

Am 20.03.2017 um 13:47 schrieb Peter Lieven:
> Am 20.03.2017 um 12:49 schrieb Fam Zheng:
>> On Mon, 03/20 12:21, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> On 20/03/2017 03:46, Fam Zheng wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 03/17 12:20, Peter Lieven wrote:
>>>>> Am 17.03.2017 um 12:16 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
>>>>>> On 17/03/2017 12:11, Peter Lieven wrote:
>>>>>>>>> like VMDK or QCOW2 shouldn't we trust the information from the l2 
>>>>>>>>> tables in the VMDK or QCOW2?
>>>>>>>> It provides additional information, for example it works better with
>>>>>>>> prealloc=metadata.
>>>>>>> Okay, understood. Can you imagine of a away to conditionally avoid this 
>>>>>>> second callout? In my case we have an additional
>>>>>>> lseek for each cluster. For a 20GB file this are approx. 327k calls to 
>>>>>>> lseek. And if the file has no preallocated metadata
>>>>>>> it will likely not improve anything. And even if the metadata is 
>>>>>>> prealloced what is the allocation status of the clusters?
>>>>>> If the metadata is preallocated, cluster will (or should) show up as
>>>>>> zero, speeding up the copy.
>>>>> Okay, in this case the second call out to *file will not happen. It only 
>>>>> happens if the metadata says it contains data.
>>>>> So where does it actually help?
>>>>> The condition is: (ret & BDRV_BLOCK_DATA) && !(ret & BDRV_BLOCK_ZERO) && 
>>>>> So from my view it can only have any effect if the metadata returns 
>>>>> BDRV_BLOCK_DATA, but the protocol driver returns
>>>>> This can only happen if I partially write to a cluster, or am I wrong 
>>>>> here?
>>>> I think you have a point. The metadata should have said BDRV_BLOCK_ZERO if
>>>> protocol would say BDRV_BLOCK_ZERO - there is no reason the format driver 
>>>> cannot
>>>> know.
>>> That's true of qcow2, but many formats (including raw :)) don't know
>>> about BDRV_BLOCK_ZERO.
>> Raw is a little special, it could have forwarded the call to *file in its
>> BlockDriver callback. Most formats with metadata stores zero/nonzero 
>> information
>> in L1/L2 tables. For qcow2 and VMDK I think it's okay to just trust meta 
>> data on
>> zero/nonzero.
>> Fam
> BTW, the extra check was added in
> commit 5daa74a6ebce7543aaad178c4061dc087bb4c705
> Author: Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden>
> Date:   Wed Sep 4 19:00:38 2013 +0200
>     block: look for zero blocks in bs->file
>     Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <address@hidden>
>     Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden>
>     Signed-off-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <address@hidden>
> It was introduced while introducing bdv_get_block_status. I don't know what 
> the real
> issue was that was addressed with this patch?

Is it possible that this optimization was added especially for RAW? I was 
believing that
raw would forward the get_block_status call to bs->file, but it looks it 
If this one here was for RAW would it be an option to move this callout to the 
raw-format driver
and remove it from the generic code?


reply via email to

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