Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/4] qemu-img: Fix preallocation with -S 0 for convert

[Max Reitz]

On 22.02.2016 17:43, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 22.02.2016 13:50, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> Am 20.02.2016 um 18:39 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
>>> When passing -S 0 to qemu-img convert, the target image is supposed to
>>> be fully allocated. Right now, this is not the case if the source image
>>> contains areas which bdrv_get_block_status() reports as being zero.
>>>
>>> This patch introduces a new ImgConvertBlockStatus named BLK_ZERO_DATA
>>> which is set by convert_iteration_sectors() if an area is detected to be
>>> zero and min_sparse is 0. Simply using BLK_DATA is not optimal, because
>>> knowing an area to be zero allows us to memset() the buffer to be
>>> written directly rather than having to use blk_read().
>>>
>>> Other than that, BLK_ZERO_DATA is handled exactly like BLK_DATA.
>>>
>>> This patch changes the reference output for iotest 122; contrary to what
>>> it assumed, -S 0 really should allocate everything in the output, not
>>> just areas that are filled with zeros (as opposed to being zeroed).
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <address@hidden>
>>
>> I don't like how you touch the conversion code all over the place.
>> Specifically, convert_iteration_sectors() and convert_read() (and
>> consequently s->status) are supposed to be only about the source file.
>> -S 0 doesn't make a difference for what the source file looks like, so
>> we shouldn't need to change anything there.
>>
>> The following change should do the same thing (it passes your test case
>> anyway) and is more contained to the actual writeout of image data.
> 
> Well, I briefly considered making @buf non-const in convert_write(), but
> I discarded that idea, and I'm still not comfortable with that. If you
> argue that convert_read() should only deal with the source image, I'll
> argue that convert_write() should only deal with the target image. I
> know that you're making @buf non-const because we need some scratch
> buffer and, well, @buf is available, so why not use that? But it still
> doesn't sit right with me.
> 
> So I'd like to pull that memset() out of convert_write() and just tell
> convert_write() to write that buffer as data. In fact, that is basically
> what my patch does. But why does it then not just use BLK_DATA but this
> new status?
> 
> Because of two reasons: First, another issue with your patch is that
> zeroed areas are not counted in the progress update. If we are writing
> them as zeros, we should count them, however. Therefore, we need some
> special-casing in convert_do_copy(). Effectively, we end up with stuff like:
> 
>> if (s->status == BLK_DATA ||
>>     (!s->min_sparse && s->status == BLK_ZERO))
> 
> I found that combination of (min_sparse && BLK_ZERO) to be ugly, and
> liked it much better if we could do that test a single time in
> convert_read and be done with it. This is why I added the new status.*
> 
> And if you pull the memset() out of convert_write() and add a new
> status, what you end up with is basically my patch.
> 
> *Note that I initially thought we'd have this test in many more places
> than we actually would, as it turned out. I'll take a look at how much
> simpler this patch becomes if I drop the BLK_ZERO_DATA status.

Said patch would look like this:

diff --git a/qemu-img.c b/qemu-img.c
index 2edb139..b696ba4 100644
--- a/qemu-img.c
+++ b/qemu-img.c
@@ -1509,10 +1509,6 @@ static int convert_read(ImgConvertState *s,
int64_t sector_num, int nb_sectors,
     int n;
     int ret;

-    if (s->status == BLK_ZERO || s->status == BLK_BACKING_FILE) {
-        return 0;
-    }
-
     assert(nb_sectors <= s->buf_sectors);
     while (nb_sectors > 0) {
         BlockBackend *blk;
@@ -1650,7 +1646,8 @@ static int convert_do_copy(ImgConvertState *s)
             ret = n;
             goto fail;
         }
-        if (s->status == BLK_DATA) {
+        if (s->status == BLK_DATA || (!s->min_sparse && s->status ==
BLK_ZERO))
+        {
             s->allocated_sectors += n;
         }
         sector_num += n;
@@ -1670,17 +1667,24 @@ static int convert_do_copy(ImgConvertState *s)
             ret = n;
             goto fail;
         }
-        if (s->status == BLK_DATA) {
+        if (s->status == BLK_DATA || (!s->min_sparse && s->status ==
BLK_ZERO))
+        {
             allocated_done += n;
             qemu_progress_print(100.0 * allocated_done /
s->allocated_sectors,
                                 0);
         }

-        ret = convert_read(s, sector_num, n, buf);
-        if (ret < 0) {
-            error_report("error while reading sector %" PRId64
-                         ": %s", sector_num, strerror(-ret));
-            goto fail;
+        if (s->status == BLK_DATA) {
+            ret = convert_read(s, sector_num, n, buf);
+            if (ret < 0) {
+                error_report("error while reading sector %" PRId64
+                             ": %s", sector_num, strerror(-ret));
+                goto fail;
+            }
+        } else if (!s->min_sparse && s->status == BLK_ZERO) {
+            n = MIN(n, s->buf_sectors);
+            memset(buf, 0, n * BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE);
+            s->status = BLK_DATA;
         }

         ret = convert_write(s, sector_num, n, buf);



I'd get the diffcount even smaller by keeping convert_read() unchanged
and continuing to call it unconditionally, but I like that change in
itself because I find it makes the logic clearer. I can be persuaded to
split this patch into two, however (one pulling the condition out of
convert_read(), and another one doing the rest of this patch).

Max

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature