Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/5] ide/atapi: make PIO read requests async

[John Snow]

On 10/06/2015 02:31 PM, Peter Lieven wrote:
> Am 06.10.2015 um 19:56 schrieb John Snow:
>>
>> On 10/06/2015 01:12 PM, Peter Lieven wrote:
>>>> Am 06.10.2015 um 19:07 schrieb John Snow <address@hidden>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/06/2015 05:20 AM, Peter Lieven wrote:
>>>>>> Am 06.10.2015 um 10:57 schrieb Kevin Wolf:
>>>>>> Am 05.10.2015 um 23:15 hat John Snow geschrieben:
>>>>>>> On 09/21/2015 08:25 AM, Peter Lieven wrote:
>>>>>>>> PIO read requests on the ATAPI interface used to be sync blk requests.
>>>>>>>> This has to siginificant drawbacks. First the main loop hangs util an
>>>>>>>> I/O request is completed and secondly if the I/O request does not
>>>>>>>> complete (e.g. due to an unresponsive storage) Qemu hangs completely.
Maybe you can have a look at the other patches of this series as well?
Then I can
respin the whole series.


>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Peter Lieven <address@hidden>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>  hw/ide/atapi.c | 69
>>>>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
>>>>>>>>  1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/hw/ide/atapi.c b/hw/ide/atapi.c
>>>>>>>> index 747f466..9257e1c 100644
>>>>>>>> --- a/hw/ide/atapi.c
>>>>>>>> +++ b/hw/ide/atapi.c
>>>>>>>> @@ -105,31 +105,51 @@ static void cd_data_to_raw(uint8_t *buf, int lba)
>>>>>>>>      memset(buf, 0, 288);
>>>>>>>>  }
>>>>>>>>  -static int cd_read_sector(IDEState *s, int lba, uint8_t *buf, int
>>>>>>>> sector_size)
>>>>>>>> +static void cd_read_sector_cb(void *opaque, int ret)
>>>>>>>>  {
>>>>>>>> -    int ret;
>>>>>>>> +    IDEState *s = opaque;
>>>>>>>>  -    switch(sector_size) {
>>>>>>>> -    case 2048:
>>>>>>>> -        block_acct_start(blk_get_stats(s->blk), &s->acct,
>>>>>>>> -                         4 * BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE, BLOCK_ACCT_READ);
>>>>>>>> -        ret = blk_read(s->blk, (int64_t)lba << 2, buf, 4);
>>>>>>>> -        block_acct_done(blk_get_stats(s->blk), &s->acct);
>>>>>>>> -        break;
>>>>>>>> -    case 2352:
>>>>>>>> -        block_acct_start(blk_get_stats(s->blk), &s->acct,
>>>>>>>> -                         4 * BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE, BLOCK_ACCT_READ);
>>>>>>>> -        ret = blk_read(s->blk, (int64_t)lba << 2, buf + 16, 4);
>>>>>>>> -        block_acct_done(blk_get_stats(s->blk), &s->acct);
>>>>>>>> -        if (ret < 0)
>>>>>>>> -            return ret;
>>>>>>>> -        cd_data_to_raw(buf, lba);
>>>>>>>> -        break;
>>>>>>>> -    default:
>>>>>>>> -        ret = -EIO;
>>>>>>>> -        break;
>>>>>>>> +    block_acct_done(blk_get_stats(s->blk), &s->acct);
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +    if (ret < 0) {
>>>>>>>> +        ide_atapi_io_error(s, ret);
>>>>>>>> +        return;
>>>>>>>> +    }
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +    if (s->cd_sector_size == 2352) {
>>>>>>>> +        cd_data_to_raw(s->io_buffer, s->lba);
>>>>>>>>      }
>>>>>>>> -    return ret;
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +    s->lba++;
>>>>>>>> +    s->io_buffer_index = 0;
>>>>>>>> +    s->status &= ~BUSY_STAT;
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +    ide_atapi_cmd_reply_end(s);
>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +static int cd_read_sector(IDEState *s, int lba, void *buf, int
>>>>>>>> sector_size)
>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>> +    if (sector_size != 2048 && sector_size != 2352) {
>>>>>>>> +        return -EINVAL;
>>>>>>>> +    }
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +    s->iov.iov_base = buf;
>>>>>>>> +    if (sector_size == 2352) {
>>>>>>>> +        buf += 4;
>>>>>>>> +    }
>>>>>> This doesn't look quite right, buf is never read after this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, why +=4 when it was originally buf + 16?
>>>>> You are right. I mixed that up.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +    s->iov.iov_len = 4 * BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE;
>>>>>>>> +    qemu_iovec_init_external(&s->qiov, &s->iov, 1);
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +    if (blk_aio_readv(s->blk, (int64_t)lba << 2, &s->qiov, 4,
>>>>>>>> +                      cd_read_sector_cb, s) == NULL) {
>>>>>>>> +        return -EIO;
>>>>>>>> +    }
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +    block_acct_start(blk_get_stats(s->blk), &s->acct,
>>>>>>>> +                     4 * BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE, BLOCK_ACCT_READ);
>>>>>>>> +    s->status |= BUSY_STAT;
>>>>>>>> +    return 0;
>>>>>>>>  }
>>>>>>> We discussed this off-list a bit, but for upstream synchronization:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unfortunately, I believe making cd_read_sector here non-blocking makes
>>>>>>> ide_atapi_cmd_reply_end non-blocking, and as a result makes calls to
>>>>>>> s->end_transfer_func() nonblocking, which functions like ide_data_readw
>>>>>>> are not prepared to cope with.
>>>>>> I don't think that's a problem as long as BSY is set while the
>>>>>> asynchronous command is running and DRQ is cleared. The latter will
>>>>>> protect ide_data_readw(). ide_sector_read() does essentially the same
>>>>>> thing.
>>>>> I was thinking the same. Without the BSY its not working at all.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Or maybe I'm just missing what you're trying to say.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My suggestion is to buffer an entire DRQ block of data at once
>>>>>>> (byte_count_limit) to avoid the problem.
>>>>>> No matter whether there is a problem or not, buffering more data at once
>>>>>> (and therefore doing less requests) is better for performance anyway.
>>>>> Its possible to do only one read in the backend and read the whole
>>>>> request into the IO buffer. I send a follow-up.
>>>> Be cautious: we only have 128K (+4 bytes) to play with in the io_buffer
>>>> and the READ10 cdb can request up to 128MiB! For performance, it might
>>>> be nice to always buffer something like:
>>>>
>>>> MIN(128K, nb_sectors * sector_size)
>>> isnt nb_sectors limited to CD_MAX_SECTORS (32)?
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>> CD_MAX_SECTORS is... (80 * 60 * 75 * 2048) / 512 --> 1440000, and
>> describes the maximum sector size for a CD medium, not the request size.
>>
>> Where'd you get the 32 number?
> 
> You are right. I mixed this up. You where talking of a maximum transfer
> size of close to 32 sectors. But you where referring to an ide transfer not
> the maximum request size in terms of SCSI block limits.
> 

Ah, yes. You can request up to 0xfffe bytes per DRQ cycle, which is a
hair shy of 32 sectors, but the overall transaction can be quite large.

> I will rework that patch on Thursday.
> 
> Maybe you can have a look at the other patches of this series as well? Then I 
> can
> respin the whole series.
> 
> Thanks for your help,
> Peter
> 

Sure thing. Sorry to drag you into one of the darkest corners of hw/ide/*.

--js