Am 23.06.2021 um 17:01 hat Max Reitz geschrieben: > As we have attempted before > (https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2019-01/msg06451.html, > "file-posix: Cache lseek result for data regions"; > https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-block/2021-02/msg00934.html, > "file-posix: Cache next hole"), this patch seeks to reduce the number of > SEEK_DATA/HOLE operations the file-posix driver has to perform. The > main difference is that this time it is implemented as part of the > general block layer code. > > The problem we face is that on some filesystems or in some > circumstances, SEEK_DATA/HOLE is unreasonably slow. Given the > implementation is outside of qemu, there is little we can do about its > performance. > > We have already introduced the want_zero parameter to > bdrv_co_block_status() to reduce the number of SEEK_DATA/HOLE calls > unless we really want zero information; but sometimes we do want that > information, because for files that consist largely of zero areas, > special-casing those areas can give large performance boosts. So the > real problem is with files that consist largely of data, so that > inquiring the block status does not gain us much performance, but where > such an inquiry itself takes a lot of time. > > To address this, we want to cache data regions. Most of the time, when > bad performance is reported, it is in places where the image is iterated > over from start to end (qemu-img convert or the mirror job), so a simple > yet effective solution is to cache only the current data region. > > (Note that only caching data regions but not zero regions means that > returning false information from the cache is not catastrophic: Treating > zeroes as data is fine. While we try to invalidate the cache on zero > writes and discards, such incongruences may still occur when there are > other processes writing to the image.) > > We only use the cache for nodes without children (i.e. protocol nodes), > because that is where the problem is: Drivers that rely on block-status > implementations outside of qemu (e.g. SEEK_DATA/HOLE). > > Resolves: https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/issues/307 > Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <mre...@redhat.com>
Since you indicated that you'll respin the patch, I'll add my minor comments: > @@ -2442,9 +2445,58 @@ static int coroutine_fn > bdrv_co_block_status(BlockDriverState *bs, > aligned_bytes = ROUND_UP(offset + bytes, align) - aligned_offset; > > if (bs->drv->bdrv_co_block_status) { > - ret = bs->drv->bdrv_co_block_status(bs, want_zero, aligned_offset, > - aligned_bytes, pnum, &local_map, > - &local_file); > + bool from_cache = false; > + > + /* > + * Use the block-status cache only for protocol nodes: Format > + * drivers are generally quick to inquire the status, but protocol > + * drivers often need to get information from outside of qemu, so > + * we do not have control over the actual implementation. There > + * have been cases where inquiring the status took an unreasonably > + * long time, and we can do nothing in qemu to fix it. > + * This is especially problematic for images with large data areas, > + * because finding the few holes in them and giving them special > + * treatment does not gain much performance. Therefore, we try to > + * cache the last-identified data region. > + * > + * Second, limiting ourselves to protocol nodes allows us to assume > + * the block status for data regions to be DATA | OFFSET_VALID, and > + * that the host offset is the same as the guest offset. > + * > + * Note that it is possible that external writers zero parts of > + * the cached regions without the cache being invalidated, and so > + * we may report zeroes as data. This is not catastrophic, > + * however, because reporting zeroes as data is fine. > + */ > + if (QLIST_EMPTY(&bs->children)) { > + if (bdrv_bsc_is_data(bs, aligned_offset, pnum)) { > + ret = BDRV_BLOCK_DATA | BDRV_BLOCK_OFFSET_VALID; > + local_file = bs; > + local_map = aligned_offset; > + > + from_cache = true; > + } > + } > + > + if (!from_cache) { Is having a separate variable from_cache really useful? This looks like it could just be: if (QLIST_EMPTY() && bdrv_bsc_is_data()) { // The code above } else { // The code below } > + ret = bs->drv->bdrv_co_block_status(bs, want_zero, > aligned_offset, > + aligned_bytes, pnum, > &local_map, > + &local_file); > + > + /* > + * Note that checking QLIST_EMPTY(&bs->children) is also done > when > + * the cache is queried above. Technically, we do not need to > check > + * it here; the worst that can happen is that we fill the cache > for > + * non-protocol nodes, and then it is never used. However, > filling > + * the cache requires an RCU update, so double check here to > avoid > + * such an update if possible. > + */ > + if (ret == (BDRV_BLOCK_DATA | BDRV_BLOCK_OFFSET_VALID) && > + QLIST_EMPTY(&bs->children)) > + { Would it be worth asserting that local_map == aligned_offset, because otherwise with a buggy protocol driver, the result from the cache could be different from the first call without us noticing? > + bdrv_bsc_fill(bs, aligned_offset, *pnum); > + } > + } > } else { > /* Default code for filters */ Kevin