All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
To: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Cc: fam@euphon.net, qemu-block@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org,
	mreitz@redhat.com, stefanha@redhat.com, den@openvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] block/io: fix bdrv_co_block_status_above
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 17:00:37 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191125160037.GD4638@linux.fritz.box> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191116163410.12129-2-vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>

Am 16.11.2019 um 17:34 hat Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy geschrieben:
> bdrv_co_block_status_above has several problems with handling short
> backing files:
> 
> 1. With want_zeros=true, it may return ret with BDRV_BLOCK_ZERO but
> without BDRV_BLOCK_ALLOCATED flag, when actually short backing file
> which produces these after-EOF zeros is inside requested backing
> sequesnce.

s/sequesnce/sequence/

> 
> 2. With want_zeros=false, it will just stop inside requested region, if
> we have unallocated region in top node when underlying backing is
> short.

I honestly don't understand this one. Can you rephrase/explain in more
detail what you mean by "stop inside [the] requested region"?

> Fix these things, making logic about short backing files clearer.
> 
> Note that 154 output changed, because now bdrv_block_status_above don't
> merge unallocated zeros with zeros after EOF (which are actually
> "allocated" in POV of read from backing-chain top) and is_zero() just
> don't understand that the whole head or tail is zero. We may update
> is_zero to call bdrv_block_status_above several times, or add flag to
> bdrv_block_status_above that we are not interested in ALLOCATED flag,
> so ranges with different ALLOCATED status may be merged, but actually,
> it seems that we'd better don't care about this corner case.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
> ---
>  block/io.c                 | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
>  tests/qemu-iotests/154.out |  4 ++--
>  2 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/block/io.c b/block/io.c
> index f75777f5ea..4d7fa99bd2 100644
> --- a/block/io.c
> +++ b/block/io.c
> @@ -2434,25 +2434,44 @@ static int coroutine_fn bdrv_co_block_status_above(BlockDriverState *bs,
>          ret = bdrv_co_block_status(p, want_zero, offset, bytes, pnum, map,
>                                     file);
>          if (ret < 0) {
> -            break;
> +            return ret;
>          }
> -        if (ret & BDRV_BLOCK_ZERO && ret & BDRV_BLOCK_EOF && !first) {
> +        if (*pnum == 0) {
> +            if (first) {
> +                return ret;
> +            }
> +
>              /*
> -             * Reading beyond the end of the file continues to read
> -             * zeroes, but we can only widen the result to the
> -             * unallocated length we learned from an earlier
> -             * iteration.
> +             * Reads from bs for selected region will return zeroes, produced
> +             * because current level is short. We should consider it as
> +             * allocated.

"the selected region"
"the current level"

> +             * TODO: Should we report p as file here?

I think that would make sense.

>               */
> +            assert(ret & BDRV_BLOCK_EOF);

Can this assertion be moved above the if (first)?

>              *pnum = bytes;
> +            return BDRV_BLOCK_ZERO | BDRV_BLOCK_ALLOCATED;
>          }
> -        if (ret & (BDRV_BLOCK_ZERO | BDRV_BLOCK_DATA)) {
> -            break;
> +        if (ret & BDRV_BLOCK_ALLOCATED) {
> +            /* We've found the node and the status, we must return. */
> +
> +            if (ret & BDRV_BLOCK_ZERO && ret & BDRV_BLOCK_EOF && !first) {
> +                /*
> +                 * This level also responsible for reads after EOF inside
> +                 * unallocated region in previous level.

"is also responsible"
"the unallocated region in the previous level"

> +                 */
> +                *pnum = bytes;
> +            }
> +
> +            return ret;
>          }
> -        /* [offset, pnum] unallocated on this layer, which could be only
> -         * the first part of [offset, bytes].  */

Any reason for deleting this comment? I think it's still valid.

> -        bytes = MIN(bytes, *pnum);
> +
> +        /* Proceed to backing */
> +        assert(*pnum <= bytes);
> +        bytes = *pnum;
>          first = false;
>      }
> +
>      return ret;
>  }

Kevin



  reply	other threads:[~2019-11-25 16:03 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-11-16 16:34 [PATCH 0/4] fix & merge block_status_above and is_allocated_above Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2019-11-16 16:34 ` [PATCH 1/4] block/io: fix bdrv_co_block_status_above Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2019-11-25 16:00   ` Kevin Wolf [this message]
2019-11-26  7:26     ` Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2019-11-26 14:20       ` Kevin Wolf
2019-11-16 16:34 ` [PATCH 2/4] block/io: bdrv_common_block_status_above: support include_base Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2019-11-25 16:19   ` Kevin Wolf
2019-11-16 16:34 ` [PATCH 3/4] block/io: bdrv_common_block_status_above: support bs == base Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2019-11-25 16:23   ` Kevin Wolf
2019-11-16 16:34 ` [PATCH 4/4] block/io: fix bdrv_is_allocated_above Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2019-11-19 10:22 ` [PATCH 0/4] fix & merge block_status_above and is_allocated_above Max Reitz
2019-11-19 12:02   ` Denis V. Lunev
2019-11-19 12:12     ` Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2019-11-19 12:20     ` Max Reitz
2019-11-19 12:30       ` Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2019-11-19 13:28         ` Kevin Wolf
2019-11-19 12:05 ` Kevin Wolf
2019-11-19 12:17   ` Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2019-11-19 12:32     ` Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2019-11-19 12:34       ` Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2019-11-19 12:49         ` Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2019-11-19 14:21     ` Kevin Wolf
2019-11-19 14:54 ` Kevin Wolf
2019-11-19 16:58 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2019-11-19 17:11   ` Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2019-11-20 10:20 ` Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2019-11-20 11:44   ` Kevin Wolf
2019-11-20 12:04     ` Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2019-11-20 13:30       ` Kevin Wolf
2019-11-20 13:51         ` Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2019-11-20 13:37       ` Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2019-11-20 16:24 ` [PATCH 5/4] iotests: add commit top->base cases to 274 Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2019-11-25 10:08 ` [PATCH 0/4] fix & merge block_status_above and is_allocated_above Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2019-11-25 15:46   ` Kevin Wolf
2019-11-26  7:27     ` Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20191125160037.GD4638@linux.fritz.box \
    --to=kwolf@redhat.com \
    --cc=den@openvz.org \
    --cc=fam@euphon.net \
    --cc=mreitz@redhat.com \
    --cc=qemu-block@nongnu.org \
    --cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
    --cc=stefanha@redhat.com \
    --cc=vsementsov@virtuozzo.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.