[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: Paolo Bonzini
Subject: Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] callout to *file in bdrv_co_get_block_status
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 17:56:38 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0

On 20/03/2017 17:43, Peter Lieven wrote:
> Am 20.03.2017 um 15:05 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
>> On 20/03/2017 14:35, Peter Lieven wrote:
>>> Am 20.03.2017 um 14:23 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
>>>> On 20/03/2017 14:13, Peter Lieven wrote:
>>>>> Am 20.03.2017 um 13:47 schrieb Peter Lieven:
>>>>>> 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 
>>>>> doesn't.
>>>>> 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?
>>>> It was meant for both raw and qcow2.
>>> Okay, but as Fam mentioned qcow2 Metadata should know that a cluster is 
>>> zero. Do you remember
>>> what the issue was?
>> I said that already---preallocated metadata.  Also, at the time
>> pre-qcow2v3 was more important.
> Yes, but Fam said that with preallocated metadata the clusters should be 
> zero, or was that
> not true before qcow2v3?

Zero clusters didn't exist before qcow2v3 I think.

>> Are you using libiscsi, block devices or files?
> Its a mixture. raw with libiscsi or lvm and qcow2 and vmdk either with libnfs 
> or on local storage.
> I stumbled across the issue with lseek on a tmpfs because in the build 
> process for our templates
> I temporarily have vmdks on a tmpfs and it takes ages before qemu-img convert 
> starts to run (it iterates
> over every 64kb cluster with that callout to find_allocation and for some 
> reason lseek is very slow on tmpfs).

Ok, thanks.  Perhaps it's worth benchmarking tmpfs specifically.  Apart
from the system call overhead (which does not really matter if you're
going to do a read), lseek on other filesystems should not be any slower
than read.


reply via email to

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