qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 17/22] ssh: use BlockDriverState's AioContext


From: Stefan Hajnoczi
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 17/22] ssh: use BlockDriverState's AioContext
Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 17:13:21 +0200

On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Richard W.M. Jones <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 04:54:41PM +0200, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>> Drop the assumption that we're using the main AioContext.  Use
>> bdrv_get_aio_context() to register fd handlers in the right AioContext
>> for this BlockDriverState.
>>
>> The .bdrv_detach_aio_context() and .bdrv_attach_aio_context() interfaces
>> are not needed since no fd handlers, timers, or BHs stay registered when
>> requests have been drained.
>>
>> For now this doesn't make much difference but will allow ssh to work in
>> IOThread instances in the future.
>>
>> Cc: Richard W.M. Jones <address@hidden>
>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <address@hidden>
>> ---
>>  block/ssh.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/block/ssh.c b/block/ssh.c
>> index aa63c9d..3f4a9fb 100644
>> --- a/block/ssh.c
>> +++ b/block/ssh.c
>> @@ -742,7 +742,7 @@ static void restart_coroutine(void *opaque)
>>      qemu_coroutine_enter(co, NULL);
>>  }
>>
>> -static coroutine_fn void set_fd_handler(BDRVSSHState *s)
>> +static coroutine_fn void set_fd_handler(BDRVSSHState *s, BlockDriverState 
>> *bs)
>>  {
>>      int r;
>>      IOHandler *rd_handler = NULL, *wr_handler = NULL;
>> @@ -760,24 +760,26 @@ static coroutine_fn void set_fd_handler(BDRVSSHState 
>> *s)
>>      DPRINTF("s->sock=%d rd_handler=%p wr_handler=%p", s->sock,
>>              rd_handler, wr_handler);
>>
>> -    qemu_aio_set_fd_handler(s->sock, rd_handler, wr_handler, co);
>> +    aio_set_fd_handler(bdrv_get_aio_context(bs), s->sock,
>> +                       rd_handler, wr_handler, co);
>>  }
>>
>> -static coroutine_fn void clear_fd_handler(BDRVSSHState *s)
>> +static coroutine_fn void clear_fd_handler(BDRVSSHState *s,
>> +                                          BlockDriverState *bs)
>>  {
>>      DPRINTF("s->sock=%d", s->sock);
>> -    qemu_aio_set_fd_handler(s->sock, NULL, NULL, NULL);
>> +    aio_set_fd_handler(bdrv_get_aio_context(bs), s->sock, NULL, NULL, NULL);
>>  }
>>
>>  /* A non-blocking call returned EAGAIN, so yield, ensuring the
>>   * handlers are set up so that we'll be rescheduled when there is an
>>   * interesting event on the socket.
>>   */
>> -static coroutine_fn void co_yield(BDRVSSHState *s)
>> +static coroutine_fn void co_yield(BDRVSSHState *s, BlockDriverState *bs)
>>  {
>> -    set_fd_handler(s);
>> +    set_fd_handler(s, bs);
>>      qemu_coroutine_yield();
>> -    clear_fd_handler(s);
>> +    clear_fd_handler(s, bs);
>>  }
>>
>>  /* SFTP has a function `libssh2_sftp_seek64' which seeks to a position
>> @@ -807,7 +809,7 @@ static void ssh_seek(BDRVSSHState *s, int64_t offset, 
>> int flags)
>>      }
>>  }
>>
>> -static coroutine_fn int ssh_read(BDRVSSHState *s,
>> +static coroutine_fn int ssh_read(BDRVSSHState *s, BlockDriverState *bs,
>>                                   int64_t offset, size_t size,
>>                                   QEMUIOVector *qiov)
>>  {
>> @@ -840,7 +842,7 @@ static coroutine_fn int ssh_read(BDRVSSHState *s,
>>          DPRINTF("sftp_read returned %zd", r);
>>
>>          if (r == LIBSSH2_ERROR_EAGAIN || r == LIBSSH2_ERROR_TIMEOUT) {
>> -            co_yield(s);
>> +            co_yield(s, bs);
>>              goto again;
>>          }
>>          if (r < 0) {
>> @@ -875,14 +877,14 @@ static coroutine_fn int ssh_co_readv(BlockDriverState 
>> *bs,
>>      int ret;
>>
>>      qemu_co_mutex_lock(&s->lock);
>> -    ret = ssh_read(s, sector_num * BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE,
>> +    ret = ssh_read(s, bs, sector_num * BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE,
>>                     nb_sectors * BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE, qiov);
>>      qemu_co_mutex_unlock(&s->lock);
>>
>>      return ret;
>>  }
>>
>> -static int ssh_write(BDRVSSHState *s,
>> +static int ssh_write(BDRVSSHState *s, BlockDriverState *bs,
>>                       int64_t offset, size_t size,
>>                       QEMUIOVector *qiov)
>>  {
>> @@ -910,7 +912,7 @@ static int ssh_write(BDRVSSHState *s,
>>          DPRINTF("sftp_write returned %zd", r);
>>
>>          if (r == LIBSSH2_ERROR_EAGAIN || r == LIBSSH2_ERROR_TIMEOUT) {
>> -            co_yield(s);
>> +            co_yield(s, bs);
>>              goto again;
>>          }
>>          if (r < 0) {
>> @@ -929,7 +931,7 @@ static int ssh_write(BDRVSSHState *s,
>>           */
>>          if (r == 0) {
>>              ssh_seek(s, offset + written, SSH_SEEK_WRITE|SSH_SEEK_FORCE);
>> -            co_yield(s);
>> +            co_yield(s, bs);
>>              goto again;
>>          }
>>
>> @@ -957,7 +959,7 @@ static coroutine_fn int ssh_co_writev(BlockDriverState 
>> *bs,
>>      int ret;
>>
>>      qemu_co_mutex_lock(&s->lock);
>> -    ret = ssh_write(s, sector_num * BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE,
>> +    ret = ssh_write(s, bs, sector_num * BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE,
>>                      nb_sectors * BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE, qiov);
>>      qemu_co_mutex_unlock(&s->lock);
>>
>> @@ -978,7 +980,7 @@ static void unsafe_flush_warning(BDRVSSHState *s, const 
>> char *what)
>>
>>  #ifdef HAS_LIBSSH2_SFTP_FSYNC
>>
>> -static coroutine_fn int ssh_flush(BDRVSSHState *s)
>> +static coroutine_fn int ssh_flush(BDRVSSHState *s, BlockDriverState *bs)
>>  {
>>      int r;
>>
>> @@ -986,7 +988,7 @@ static coroutine_fn int ssh_flush(BDRVSSHState *s)
>>   again:
>>      r = libssh2_sftp_fsync(s->sftp_handle);
>>      if (r == LIBSSH2_ERROR_EAGAIN || r == LIBSSH2_ERROR_TIMEOUT) {
>> -        co_yield(s);
>> +        co_yield(s, bs);
>>          goto again;
>>      }
>>      if (r == LIBSSH2_ERROR_SFTP_PROTOCOL &&
>> @@ -1008,7 +1010,7 @@ static coroutine_fn int ssh_co_flush(BlockDriverState 
>> *bs)
>>      int ret;
>>
>>      qemu_co_mutex_lock(&s->lock);
>> -    ret = ssh_flush(s);
>> +    ret = ssh_flush(s, bs);
>>      qemu_co_mutex_unlock(&s->lock);
>>
>>      return ret;
>> --
>> 1.9.0
>
> As this appears to simply be about adding a context pointer to several
> calls, it seems to be a simple, mechanical change, so ACK.

Yes.  I wrote about the reason for the changes and what to look out
for in the cover letter of this series if you want to know more.

Stefan



reply via email to

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