On 06/29/2017 09:23 PM, Max Reitz wrote: > On 2017-06-30 04:18, Eric Blake wrote: >> On 06/28/2017 07:05 AM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: >>> Store persistent dirty bitmaps in qcow2 image. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsement...@virtuozzo.com> >>> Reviewed-by: Max Reitz <mre...@redhat.com> >>> ---
>>
>> This grabs the size (currently in sectors, although I plan to fix it to
>> be in bytes)...
>>
>>> + const char *bm_name = bdrv_dirty_bitmap_name(bitmap);
>>> + uint8_t *buf = NULL;
>>> + BdrvDirtyBitmapIter *dbi;
>>> + uint64_t *tb;
>>> + uint64_t tb_size =
>>> + size_to_clusters(s,
>>> + bdrv_dirty_bitmap_serialization_size(bitmap, 0, bm_size));
>>
>> ...then finds out how many bytes are required to serialize the entire
>> image, where bm_size should be the same as before...
>>
>>> + while ((sector = bdrv_dirty_iter_next(dbi)) != -1) {
>>> + uint64_t cluster = sector / sbc;
>>> + uint64_t end, write_size;
>>> + int64_t off;
>>> +
>>> + sector = cluster * sbc;
>>> + end = MIN(bm_size, sector + sbc);
>>> + write_size =
>>> + bdrv_dirty_bitmap_serialization_size(bitmap, sector, end -
>>> sector);
>>
>> But here, rather than tackling the entire image at once, you are
>> subdividing your queries along arbitrary lines. But nowhere do I see a
>> call to bdrv_dirty_bitmap_serialization_align() to make sure your
>> end-sector value is properly aligned; if it is not aligned, you will
>> trigger an assertion failure here...
>
> It's 4:21 am here, so I cannot claim to be right, but if I remember
> correctly, it will automatically aligned because sbc is the number of
> bits (and thus sectors) a bitmap cluster covers.
Okay, I re-read the spec. First thing I noticed: we have a potential
conflict if an image is allowed to be resized:
"All stored bitmaps are related to the virtual disk stored in the same
image, so each bitmap size is equal to the virtual disk size."
If you resize an image, does the bitmap size have to be adjusted as
well? What if you create one bitmap, then take an internal snapshot,
then resize? Or do we declare that (at least for now) the presence of a
bitmap is incompatible with the use of an internal snapshot?
Conversely, we state that:
"Structure of a bitmap directory entry:
...
8 - 11: bitmap_table_size
Number of entries in the bitmap table of the bitmap."
Since a bitmap therefore tracks its own size, I think the earlier
statement that all bitmap sizes are equal to the virtual disk size is
too strict (there seems to be no technical reason why a bitmap can't
have a different size that the image).
But, having read that, you are correct that we are subdividing our
bitmaps according to what fits in a qcow2 cluster, and the smallest
qcow2 cluster we can come up with is 512-bytes (or 4k bits of the
bitmap). Checking hbitmap.c, we are merely asserting that our alignment
is always a multiple of 64 << hb->granularity. But since we are
partitioning a cluster at a time, our minimum alignment will be 512 <<
hb->granularity, which is always aligned.
So all the more I need to do is add an assertion.
> I'm for fixing it later. I would have announced the series "applied" an
> hour ago if I hadn't had to bisect iotest 055 breakage...
I'm working it into my v4 posting of dirty-bitmap cleanups.
--
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3266
Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
