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

[Peter Lieven]

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.
> > >
> > > 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.

Maybe do you have a pointer to the test tool that John mentioned?

Peter