Am 02.02.2015 um 15:20 hat Peter Lieven geschrieben: > Am 02.02.2015 um 15:16 schrieb Kevin Wolf: > >Am 02.02.2015 um 15:12 hat Peter Lieven geschrieben: > >>Am 02.02.2015 um 15:04 schrieb Kevin Wolf: > >>>Am 02.02.2015 um 14:55 hat Peter Lieven geschrieben: > >>>>Am 02.02.2015 um 14:23 schrieb Kevin Wolf: > >>>>>Am 30.01.2015 um 09:42 hat Denis V. Lunev geschrieben: > >>>>>>fallocate() works fine and could handle properly with arbitrary size > >>>>>>requests. There is no sense to reduce the amount of space to fallocate. > >>>>>>The bigger is the size, the better is the performance as the amount of > >>>>>>journal updates is reduced. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>The patch changes behavior for both generic filesystem and XFS > >>>>>>codepaths, > >>>>>>which are different in handle_aiocb_write_zeroes. The implementation > >>>>>>of fallocate and xfsctl(XFS_IOC_ZERO_RANGE) for XFS are exactly the same > >>>>>>thus the change is fine for both ways. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Signed-off-by: Denis V. Lunev <d...@openvz.org> > >>>>>>Reviewed-by: Max Reitz <mre...@redhat.com> > >>>>>>CC: Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> > >>>>>>CC: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@redhat.com> > >>>>>>CC: Peter Lieven <p...@kamp.de> > >>>>>>CC: Fam Zheng <f...@redhat.com> > >>>>>>--- > >>>>>> block/raw-posix.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++ > >>>>>> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+) > >>>>>> > >>>>>>diff --git a/block/raw-posix.c b/block/raw-posix.c > >>>>>>index 7b42f37..933c778 100644 > >>>>>>--- a/block/raw-posix.c > >>>>>>+++ b/block/raw-posix.c > >>>>>>@@ -293,6 +293,20 @@ static void raw_probe_alignment(BlockDriverState > >>>>>>*bs, int fd, Error **errp) > >>>>>> } > >>>>>> } > >>>>>>+static void raw_probe_max_write_zeroes(BlockDriverState *bs) > >>>>>>+{ > >>>>>>+ BDRVRawState *s = bs->opaque; > >>>>>>+ struct stat st; > >>>>>>+ > >>>>>>+ if (fstat(s->fd, &st) < 0) { > >>>>>>+ return; /* no problem, keep default value */ > >>>>>>+ } > >>>>>>+ if (!S_ISREG(st.st_mode) || !s->discard_zeroes) { > >>>>>>+ return; > >>>>>>+ } > >>>>>>+ bs->bl.max_write_zeroes = INT_MAX; > >>>>>>+} > >>>>>Peter, do you remember why INT_MAX isn't actually the default? I think > >>>>>the most reasonable behaviour would be that a limitation is only used if > >>>>>a block driver requests it, and otherwise unlimited is assumed. > >>>>The default (0) actually means unlimited or undefined. We introduced > >>>>that limit of 16MB in bdrv_co_write_zeroes to create only reasonable > >>>>sized requests because there is no guarantee that write zeroes is a > >>>>fast operation. We should set INT_MAX only if we know that write > >>>>zeroes of an arbitrary size is always fast. > >>>Well, splitting it up doesn't make it any faster. I think we can assume > >>>that drv->bdrv_co_write_zeroes() wants to know the full request size > >>>unless the driver has explicitly set bs->bl.max_write_zeroes. > >>You mean sth like this: > >Yes, I think that's what I meant. > > I can't find the original discussion why we added this limit. It was actually > the default > before we introduced BlockLimits. And, it was also the default in the > unsupported path > of write zeroes which created big memory allocations. This might be the > reason why > we introduced a limit.
Commit c31cb707 added the limit to bdrv_co_do_write_zeroes(). Before, we used a bounce buffer of unbounded size. Anyway, it seems that none of us can think of a reason not to apply the patch to block.c. Let's just do it, and if it does break something, we'll figure it out. Can you send it as a proper patch? Denis, if we apply that patch, would you be okay with dropping 7/7 from this series, or would still something be missing? Kevin > >>diff --git a/block.c b/block.c > >>index 61412e9..8272ef9 100644 > >>--- a/block.c > >>+++ b/block.c > >>@@ -3192,10 +3192,7 @@ int coroutine_fn > >>bdrv_co_copy_on_readv(BlockDriverState *bs, > >> BDRV_REQ_COPY_ON_READ); > >> } > >> > >>-/* if no limit is specified in the BlockLimits use a default > >>- * of 32768 512-byte sectors (16 MiB) per request. > >>- */ > >>-#define MAX_WRITE_ZEROES_DEFAULT 32768 > >>+#define MAX_WRITE_ZEROES_BOUNCE_BUFFER 32768 > >> > >> static int coroutine_fn bdrv_co_do_write_zeroes(BlockDriverState *bs, > >> int64_t sector_num, int nb_sectors, BdrvRequestFlags flags) > >>@@ -3206,7 +3203,7 @@ static int coroutine_fn > >>bdrv_co_do_write_zeroes(BlockDriverState *bs, > >> int ret = 0; > >> > >> int max_write_zeroes = bs->bl.max_write_zeroes ? > >>- bs->bl.max_write_zeroes : > >>MAX_WRITE_ZEROES_DEFAULT; > >>+ bs->bl.max_write_zeroes : INT_MAX; > >> > >> while (nb_sectors > 0 && !ret) { > >> int num = nb_sectors; > >>@@ -3242,7 +3239,7 @@ static int coroutine_fn > >>bdrv_co_do_write_zeroes(BlockDriverState *bs, > >> if (ret == -ENOTSUP) { > >> /* Fall back to bounce buffer if write zeroes is unsupported > >> */ > >> int max_xfer_len = MIN_NON_ZERO(bs->bl.max_transfer_length, > >>- MAX_WRITE_ZEROES_DEFAULT); > >>+ MAX_WRITE_ZEROES_BOUNCE_BUFFER); > >> num = MIN(num, max_xfer_len); > >> iov.iov_len = num * BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE; > >> if (iov.iov_base == NULL) { > >>@@ -5099,11 +5096,6 @@ static void coroutine_fn bdrv_discard_co_entry(void > >>*opaque) > >> rwco->ret = bdrv_co_discard(rwco->bs, rwco->sector_num, > >> rwco->nb_sectors); > >> } > >> > >>-/* if no limit is specified in the BlockLimits use a default > >>- * of 32768 512-byte sectors (16 MiB) per request. > >>- */ > >>-#define MAX_DISCARD_DEFAULT 32768 > >>- > >> int coroutine_fn bdrv_co_discard(BlockDriverState *bs, int64_t sector_num, > >> int nb_sectors) > >> { > >>@@ -5128,7 +5120,7 @@ int coroutine_fn bdrv_co_discard(BlockDriverState > >>*bs, int64_t sector_num, > >> return 0; > >> } > >> > >>- max_discard = bs->bl.max_discard ? bs->bl.max_discard : > >>MAX_DISCARD_DEFAULT; > >>+ max_discard = bs->bl.max_discard ? bs->bl.max_discard : INT_MAX; > >> while (nb_sectors > 0) { > >> int ret; > >> int num = nb_sectors; > >> > >> > >> > >>Peter > >