[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC][PATCH v2] block: add write threshold reporting fo
From: |
Stefan Hajnoczi |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC][PATCH v2] block: add write threshold reporting for block devices |
Date: |
Thu, 20 Nov 2014 11:04:56 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) |
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 11:30:53AM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 17.11.2014 um 17:49 hat Stefan Hajnoczi geschrieben:
> > On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 02:12:13PM +0100, Francesco Romani wrote:
> > > +void bdrv_set_usage_threshold(BlockDriverState *bs, int64_t
> > > threshold_bytes)
> > > +{
> > > + BlockDriverState *target_bs = bs;
> > > + if (bs->file) {
> > > + target_bs = bs->file;
> > > + }
> >
> > Hmm...I think now I understand why you are trying to use bs->file. This
> > is an attempt to make image formats work with the threshold.
> >
> > Unfortunately the BlockDriverState topology can be more complicated than
> > just 1 level.
> >
> > If we hardcode a strategy to traverse bs->file then it will work in most
> > cases:
> >
> > while (bs->file) {
> > bs = bs->file;
> > }
> >
> > But there are cases like VMDK extent files where a BlockDriverState
> > actually has multiple children.
> >
> > One way to solve this is to require that the management tool tells QEMU
> > which exact BlockDriverState node the threshold applies to. Then QEMU
> > doesn't need any hardcoded policy. But I'm not sure how realistic that
> > it at the moment (whether management tools are uses node names for each
> > node yet), so it may be best to hardcode the bs->file traversal that
> > I've suggested.
> >
> > Kevin: Do you agree?
>
> I have a feeling that we would regret this in the long run because it
> would allow only one special case of a general problem (watching a BDS).
> This means that we'll get inconsistent APIs.
>
> We're "only" talking about an optimisation here, even though a very
> useful one, so I wouldn't easily make compromises here. We should
> probably insist on using the node-name. Management tools need new code
> anyway to make use of the new functionality, so they can implement
> node-name support as well while they're at it.
Using node-name is the best thing to do.
My concern is just whether libvirt and other management tools are
actually using node-name yet.
Stefan
pgpdMQXGhU4tk.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- [Qemu-devel] [RFC][PATCH v2] add write threshold reporting for block devices, Francesco Romani, 2014/11/07
- [Qemu-devel] [RFC][PATCH v2] block: add write threshold reporting for block devices, Francesco Romani, 2014/11/07
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC][PATCH v2] block: add write threshold reporting for block devices, Kevin Wolf, 2014/11/20
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC][PATCH v2] block: add write threshold reporting for block devices,
Stefan Hajnoczi <=
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC][PATCH v2] block: add write threshold reporting for block devices, Kevin Wolf, 2014/11/20
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC][PATCH v2] block: add write threshold reporting for block devices, Francesco Romani, 2014/11/21
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC][PATCH v2] block: add write threshold reporting for block devices, Kevin Wolf, 2014/11/21
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC][PATCH v2] block: add write threshold reporting for block devices, Francesco Romani, 2014/11/21
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC][PATCH v2] block: add write threshold reporting for block devices, Eric Blake, 2014/11/21
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC][PATCH v2] block: add write threshold reporting for block devices, Eric Blake, 2014/11/20