01.08.2019 14:28, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 31.07.19 18:01, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
>> 30.07.2019 21:28, John Snow wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/30/19 12:32 PM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
>>>> write flags are constant, let's store it in BackupBlockJob instead of
>>>> recalculating. It also makes two boolean fields to be unused, so,
>>>> drop them.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsement...@virtuozzo.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> block/backup.c | 24 ++++++++++++------------
>>>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/block/backup.c b/block/backup.c
>>>> index c5f941101a..4651649e9d 100644
>>>> --- a/block/backup.c
>>>> +++ b/block/backup.c
>>>> @@ -47,7 +47,6 @@ typedef struct BackupBlockJob {
>>>> uint64_t len;
>>>> uint64_t bytes_read;
>>>> int64_t cluster_size;
>>>> - bool compress;
>>>> NotifierWithReturn before_write;
>>>> QLIST_HEAD(, CowRequest) inflight_reqs;
>>>>
>>>> @@ -55,7 +54,7 @@ typedef struct BackupBlockJob {
>>>> bool use_copy_range;
>>>> int64_t copy_range_size;
>>>>
>>>> - bool serialize_target_writes;
>>>> + BdrvRequestFlags write_flags;
>>>> } BackupBlockJob;
>>>>
>>>> static const BlockJobDriver backup_job_driver;
>>>> @@ -110,10 +109,6 @@ static int coroutine_fn
>>>> backup_cow_with_bounce_buffer(BackupBlockJob *job,
>>>> BlockBackend *blk = job->common.blk;
>>>> int nbytes;
>>>> int read_flags = is_write_notifier ? BDRV_REQ_NO_SERIALISING : 0;
>>>> - int write_flags =
>>>> - (job->serialize_target_writes ? BDRV_REQ_SERIALISING : 0) |
>>>> - (job->compress ? BDRV_REQ_WRITE_COMPRESSED : 0);
>>>> -
>>>>
>>>> assert(QEMU_IS_ALIGNED(start, job->cluster_size));
>>>> hbitmap_reset(job->copy_bitmap, start, job->cluster_size);
>>>> @@ -132,7 +127,7 @@ static int coroutine_fn
>>>> backup_cow_with_bounce_buffer(BackupBlockJob *job,
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> ret = blk_co_pwrite(job->target, start, nbytes, *bounce_buffer,
>>>> - write_flags);
>>>> + job->write_flags);
>>>> if (ret < 0) {
>>>> trace_backup_do_cow_write_fail(job, start, ret);
>>>> if (error_is_read) {
>>>> @@ -160,7 +155,6 @@ static int coroutine_fn
>>>> backup_cow_with_offload(BackupBlockJob *job,
>>>> BlockBackend *blk = job->common.blk;
>>>> int nbytes;
>>>> int read_flags = is_write_notifier ? BDRV_REQ_NO_SERIALISING : 0;
>>>> - int write_flags = job->serialize_target_writes ? BDRV_REQ_SERIALISING
>>>> : 0;
>>>>
>>>> assert(QEMU_IS_ALIGNED(job->copy_range_size, job->cluster_size));
>>>> assert(QEMU_IS_ALIGNED(start, job->cluster_size));
>>>> @@ -168,7 +162,7 @@ static int coroutine_fn
>>>> backup_cow_with_offload(BackupBlockJob *job,
>>>> nr_clusters = DIV_ROUND_UP(nbytes, job->cluster_size);
>>>> hbitmap_reset(job->copy_bitmap, start, job->cluster_size *
>>>> nr_clusters);
>>>> ret = blk_co_copy_range(blk, start, job->target, start, nbytes,
>>>> - read_flags, write_flags);
>>>> + read_flags, job->write_flags);
>>>> if (ret < 0) {
>>>> trace_backup_do_cow_copy_range_fail(job, start, ret);
>>>> hbitmap_set(job->copy_bitmap, start, job->cluster_size *
>>>> nr_clusters);
>>>> @@ -638,10 +632,16 @@ BlockJob *backup_job_create(const char *job_id,
>>>> BlockDriverState *bs,
>>>> job->sync_mode = sync_mode;
>>>> job->sync_bitmap = sync_mode == MIRROR_SYNC_MODE_INCREMENTAL ?
>>>> sync_bitmap : NULL;
>>>> - job->compress = compress;
>>>>
>>>> - /* Detect image-fleecing (and similar) schemes */
>>>> - job->serialize_target_writes = bdrv_chain_contains(target, bs);
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * Set write flags:
>>>> + * 1. Detect image-fleecing (and similar) schemes
>>>> + * 2. Handle compression
>>>> + */
>>>> + job->write_flags =
>>>> + (bdrv_chain_contains(target, bs) ? BDRV_REQ_SERIALISING : 0) |
>>>> + (compress ? BDRV_REQ_WRITE_COMPRESSED : 0);
>>>> +
>>>> job->cluster_size = cluster_size;
>>>> job->copy_bitmap = copy_bitmap;
>>>> copy_bitmap = NULL;
>>>>
>>>
>>> What happens if you did pass BDRV_REQ_WRITE_COMPRESSED to
>>> blk_co_copy_range? Is that rejected somewhere in the stack?
>>
>>
>> Hmm, I'm afraid that it will be silently ignored.
>>
>> And I have one question related to copy offload too.
>>
>> Do we really need to handle max_transfer in backup code for copy offload?
>> Is max_transfer related to it really?
>>
>> Anyway, bl.max_transfer should be handled in generic copy_range code in
>> block/io.c
>> (if it should at all), I'm going to fix it, but may be, I can just drop this
>> limitation
>> from backup?
>
> On a quick glance, it doesn’t look like a limitation to me but actually
> like the opposite. backup_cow_with_bounce_buffer() only copies up to
> cluster_size, whereas backup_cow_with_offload() will copy up to the
> maximum transfer size permitted by both source and target for copy
> offloading.
>
I mean, why not to just copy the whole chunk comes in notifier and don't care
about
max_transfer? Backup loop copies cluster by cluster anyway, so only notifier
may copy
larger chunk.
--
Best regards,
Vladimir
