qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 04/12] dirty-bitmap: Track size in bytes


From: John Snow
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 04/12] dirty-bitmap: Track size in bytes
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 19:32:05 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0


On 04/12/2017 01:49 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> We are still using an internal hbitmap that tracks a size in sectors,
> with the granularity scaled down accordingly, because it lets us
> use a shortcut for our iterators which are currently sector-based.
> But there's no reason we can't track the dirty bitmap size in bytes,
> since it is an internal-only variable.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <address@hidden>
> ---
>  block/dirty-bitmap.c | 23 +++++++++++++----------
>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/block/dirty-bitmap.c b/block/dirty-bitmap.c
> index 32698d5..a413df1 100644
> --- a/block/dirty-bitmap.c
> +++ b/block/dirty-bitmap.c
> @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ struct BdrvDirtyBitmap {
>      HBitmap *meta;              /* Meta dirty bitmap */
>      BdrvDirtyBitmap *successor; /* Anonymous child; implies frozen status */
>      char *name;                 /* Optional non-empty unique ID */
> -    int64_t size;               /* Size of the bitmap (Number of sectors) */
> +    int64_t size;               /* Size of the bitmap, in bytes */
>      bool disabled;              /* Bitmap is read-only */
>      int active_iterators;       /* How many iterators are active */
>      QLIST_ENTRY(BdrvDirtyBitmap) list;
> @@ -79,24 +79,26 @@ BdrvDirtyBitmap 
> *bdrv_create_dirty_bitmap(BlockDriverState *bs,
>  {
>      int64_t bitmap_size;
>      BdrvDirtyBitmap *bitmap;
> -    uint32_t sector_granularity;
> 
> -    assert((granularity & (granularity - 1)) == 0);
> +    assert(is_power_of_2(granularity) && granularity >= BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE);
> 
>      if (name && bdrv_find_dirty_bitmap(bs, name)) {
>          error_setg(errp, "Bitmap already exists: %s", name);
>          return NULL;
>      }
> -    sector_granularity = granularity >> BDRV_SECTOR_BITS;
> -    assert(sector_granularity);
> -    bitmap_size = bdrv_nb_sectors(bs);
> +    bitmap_size = bdrv_getlength(bs);
>      if (bitmap_size < 0) {
>          error_setg_errno(errp, -bitmap_size, "could not get length of 
> device");
>          errno = -bitmap_size;
>          return NULL;
>      }
>      bitmap = g_new0(BdrvDirtyBitmap, 1);
> -    bitmap->bitmap = hbitmap_alloc(bitmap_size, ctz32(sector_granularity));
> +    /*
> +     * TODO - let hbitmap track full granularity. For now, it is tracking
> +     * only sector granularity, as a shortcut for our iterators.
> +     */
> +    bitmap->bitmap = hbitmap_alloc(bitmap_size >> BDRV_SECTOR_BITS,
> +                                   ctz32(granularity) - BDRV_SECTOR_BITS);
>      bitmap->size = bitmap_size;
>      bitmap->name = g_strdup(name);
>      bitmap->disabled = false;
> @@ -246,12 +248,13 @@ BdrvDirtyBitmap 
> *bdrv_reclaim_dirty_bitmap(BlockDriverState *bs,
>  void bdrv_dirty_bitmap_truncate(BlockDriverState *bs)
>  {
>      BdrvDirtyBitmap *bitmap;
> -    uint64_t size = bdrv_nb_sectors(bs);
> +    int64_t size = bdrv_getlength(bs);
> 
> +    assert(size >= 0);
>      QLIST_FOREACH(bitmap, &bs->dirty_bitmaps, list) {
>          assert(!bdrv_dirty_bitmap_frozen(bitmap));
>          assert(!bitmap->active_iterators);
> -        hbitmap_truncate(bitmap->bitmap, size);
> +        hbitmap_truncate(bitmap->bitmap, size >> BDRV_SECTOR_BITS);
>          bitmap->size = size;
>      }
>  }
> @@ -419,7 +422,7 @@ void bdrv_clear_dirty_bitmap(BdrvDirtyBitmap *bitmap, 
> HBitmap **out)
>          hbitmap_reset_all(bitmap->bitmap);
>      } else {
>          HBitmap *backup = bitmap->bitmap;
> -        bitmap->bitmap = hbitmap_alloc(bitmap->size,
> +        bitmap->bitmap = hbitmap_alloc(bitmap->size >> BDRV_SECTOR_BITS,
>                                         hbitmap_granularity(backup));
>          *out = backup;
>      }
> 

Reviewed-by: John Snow <address@hidden>



reply via email to

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