qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 6/8] block: request overlap detection


From: Kevin Wolf
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 6/8] block: request overlap detection
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 17:36:19 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111115 Thunderbird/8.0

Am 22.11.2011 16:10, schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Kevin Wolf <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Am 17.11.2011 14:40, schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi:
>>> Detect overlapping requests and remember to align to cluster boundaries
>>> if the image format uses them.  This assumes that allocating I/O is
>>> performed in cluster granularity - which is true for qcow2, qed, etc.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <address@hidden>
>>
>>>  static void coroutine_fn wait_for_overlapping_requests(BlockDriverState 
>>> *bs,
>>>          int64_t sector_num, int nb_sectors)
>>>  {
>>>      BdrvTrackedRequest *req;
>>> +    int64_t cluster_sector_num;
>>> +    int cluster_nb_sectors;
>>>      bool retry;
>>>
>>> +    /* If we touch the same cluster it counts as an overlap */
>>> +    round_to_clusters(bs, sector_num, nb_sectors,
>>> +                      &cluster_sector_num, &cluster_nb_sectors);
>>
>> Is this really required? Image formats must be able to deal with two
>> concurrent write requests to the same cluster, and I don't think it
>> makes a difference whether it's a guest write request or a COR one.
>>
>> Or does the queuing protect more than just that a COR never takes
>> precedence over a guest write?
> 
> It guarantees that a write request and a copy-on-read request racing
> for the same cluster will be serialized.  Either:
> 1. CoR, then write.
> 2. Allocating write, then normal read.
> 
> If we don't do this we risk:
> 3. CoR (part 1: read), allocating write, CoR (part 2: write)
> 
> The result is that we dropped the write request!

Right, this requirement comes in with the next patch that makes COR
round clusters for optimisation. I think this relationship deserves a
comment here.

Anyway, I merged the series into the block branch (Only to notice that
it would have been better to merge bdrv_co_is_allocated first... Will
review that tomorrow.) If you send another version for this patch to add
a comment, I'll replace it.

Kevin



reply via email to

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