Re: [PATCH v4 00/23] backup performance: block_status + async

[Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>]

19.01.2021 21:40, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 16.01.21 22:46, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
>> Hi Max!
>> I applied my series onto yours 129-fixing and found, that 129 fails for backup.
>> And setting small max-chunk and even max-workers to 1 doesn't help! (setting
>> speed like in v3 still helps).
>>
>> And I found, that the problem is that really, the whole backup job goes during
>> drain, because in new architecture we do just job_yield() during the whole
>> background block-copy.
>>
>> This leads to modifying the existing patch in the series, which does job_enter()
>> from job_user_pause: we just need call job_enter() from job_pause() to cover
>> not only user pauses but also drained_begin.
>>
>> So, now I don't need any additional fixing of 129.
>>
>> Changes in v4:
>> - add a lot of Max's r-b's, thanks!
>>
>> 03: fix over-80 line (in comment), add r-b
>> 09: was "[PATCH v3 10/25] job: call job_enter from job_user_pause",
>>      now changed to finally fix 129 iotest, drop r-b
>>
>> 10: squash-in additional wording on max-chunk, fix error message, keep r-b
>> 17: drop extra include, assert job_is_cancelled() instead of check, add r-b
>> 18: adjust commit message, add r-b
>> 23: add comments and assertion, about the fact that test doesn't support
>>      paths with colon inside
>>      fix s/disable-copy-range/use-copy-range/
> 
> Hmmm, for me, 129 sometimes fails still, because it completes too quickly...  (The error then is that 'return[0]' does not exist in query-block-jobs’s result, because the job is already gone.)
> 
> When I insert a print(result) after the query-block-jobs, I can see that the job has always progressed really far, even if its still running. (Like, generally the offset is just one MB shy of 1G.)
> 
> I suspect the problem is that block-copy just copies too much from the start (by default); i.e., it starts 64 workers with, hm, well, 1 MB of chunk size?  Shouldn’t fill the 128 MB immediately...
> 
> Anyway, limiting the number of workers (to 1) and the chunk size (to 64k) with x-perf does ensure that the backup job’s progress is limited to 1 MB or so, which looks fine to me.
> 
> I suppose we should do that, then (in 129), before patch 17?

Yes, that sounds reasonable

> 
> (PS: I can also see a MacOS failure in iotest 256.  I suspect it’s related to this series, because 256 is a backup test (with iothreads), but I’m not sure yet.  The log is here:
> 
> https://cirrus-ci.com/task/5276331753603072
> )
> 

qemu received signal 31 ?

googling for MacOS...

  31    SIGUSR2      terminate process    User defined signal 2


And what does it mean? Something interesting may be in qemu log..


-- 
Best regards,
Vladimir