Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/3] block: add bdrv_co_drain_end callback
On Thu, 09/21 16:17, Manos Pitsidianakis wrote: > BlockDriverState has a bdrv_do_drain() callback but no equivalent for the end s/bdrv_do_drain/bdrv_co_drain/ > of the drain. The throttle driver (block/throttle.c) needs a way to mark the > end of the drain in order to toggle io_limits_disabled correctly, thus > bdrv_co_drain_end is needed. > > Signed-off-by: Manos Pitsidianakis > --- > include/block/block_int.h | 6 ++ > block/io.c| 48 > +-- > 2 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/block/block_int.h b/include/block/block_int.h > index ba4c383393..21950cfda3 100644 > --- a/include/block/block_int.h > +++ b/include/block/block_int.h > @@ -356,8 +356,14 @@ struct BlockDriver { > /** > * Drain and stop any internal sources of requests in the driver, and > * remain so until next I/O callback (e.g. bdrv_co_writev) is called. This line needs update too, maybe: /** * bdrv_co_drain drains and stops any ... and remain so until * bdrv_co_drain_end is called. > + * > + * The callbacks are called at the beginning and ending of the drain > + * respectively. They should be implemented if the driver needs to e.g. As implied by above change, should we explicitly require "should both be implemented"? It may not be technically required, but I think is cleaner and easier to reason about. > + * manage scheduled I/O requests, or toggle an internal state. After an s/After an/After a/ > + * bdrv_co_drain_end() invocation new requests will continue normally. > */ > void coroutine_fn (*bdrv_co_drain)(BlockDriverState *bs); > +void coroutine_fn (*bdrv_co_drain_end)(BlockDriverState *bs); > > void (*bdrv_add_child)(BlockDriverState *parent, BlockDriverState *child, > Error **errp); > diff --git a/block/io.c b/block/io.c > index 4378ae4c7d..b0a10ad3ef 100644 > --- a/block/io.c > +++ b/block/io.c > @@ -153,6 +153,7 @@ typedef struct { > Coroutine *co; > BlockDriverState *bs; > bool done; > +bool begin; > } BdrvCoDrainData; > > static void coroutine_fn bdrv_drain_invoke_entry(void *opaque) > @@ -160,18 +161,23 @@ static void coroutine_fn bdrv_drain_invoke_entry(void > *opaque) > BdrvCoDrainData *data = opaque; > BlockDriverState *bs = data->bs; > > -bs->drv->bdrv_co_drain(bs); > +if (data->begin) { > +bs->drv->bdrv_co_drain(bs); > +} else { > +bs->drv->bdrv_co_drain_end(bs); > +} > > /* Set data->done before reading bs->wakeup. */ > atomic_mb_set(&data->done, true); > bdrv_wakeup(bs); > } > > -static void bdrv_drain_invoke(BlockDriverState *bs) > +static void bdrv_drain_invoke(BlockDriverState *bs, bool begin) > { > -BdrvCoDrainData data = { .bs = bs, .done = false }; > +BdrvCoDrainData data = { .bs = bs, .done = false, .begin = begin}; > > -if (!bs->drv || !bs->drv->bdrv_co_drain) { > +if (!bs->drv || (begin && !bs->drv->bdrv_co_drain) || > +(!begin && !bs->drv->bdrv_co_drain_end)) { > return; > } > > @@ -180,15 +186,16 @@ static void bdrv_drain_invoke(BlockDriverState *bs) > BDRV_POLL_WHILE(bs, !data.done); > } > > -static bool bdrv_drain_recurse(BlockDriverState *bs) > +static bool bdrv_drain_recurse(BlockDriverState *bs, bool begin) > { > BdrvChild *child, *tmp; > bool waited; > > -waited = BDRV_POLL_WHILE(bs, atomic_read(&bs->in_flight) > 0); > - > /* Ensure any pending metadata writes are submitted to bs->file. */ > -bdrv_drain_invoke(bs); > +bdrv_drain_invoke(bs, begin); > + > +/* Wait for drained requests to finish */ > +waited = BDRV_POLL_WHILE(bs, atomic_read(&bs->in_flight) > 0); > > QLIST_FOREACH_SAFE(child, &bs->children, next, tmp) { > BlockDriverState *bs = child->bs; > @@ -205,7 +212,7 @@ static bool bdrv_drain_recurse(BlockDriverState *bs) > */ > bdrv_ref(bs); > } > -waited |= bdrv_drain_recurse(bs); > +waited |= bdrv_drain_recurse(bs, begin); > if (in_main_loop) { > bdrv_unref(bs); > } > @@ -221,12 +228,18 @@ static void bdrv_co_drain_bh_cb(void *opaque) > BlockDriverState *bs = data->bs; > > bdrv_dec_in_flight(bs); > -bdrv_drained_begin(bs); > +if (data->begin) { > +bdrv_drained_begin(bs); > +} else { > +bdrv_drained_end(bs); > +} > + > data->done = true; > aio_co_wake(co); > } > > -static void coroutine_fn bdrv_co_yield_to_drain(BlockDriverState *bs) > +static void coroutine_fn bdrv_co_yield_to_drain(BlockDriverState *bs, > +bool begin) > { > BdrvCoDrainData data; > > @@ -239,6 +252,7 @@ static void coroutine_fn > bdrv_co_yield_to_drain(BlockDriverState *bs) > .co = qemu_coroutine_self(), >
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/3] block: add bdrv_co_drain_end callback
On Thu, 09/21 16:17, Manos Pitsidianakis wrote: > BlockDriverState has a bdrv_do_drain() callback but no equivalent for the end > of the drain. The throttle driver (block/throttle.c) needs a way to mark the > end of the drain in order to toggle io_limits_disabled correctly, thus > bdrv_co_drain_end is needed. > > Signed-off-by: Manos Pitsidianakis Reviewed-by: Fam Zheng
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/3] block: add bdrv_co_drain_end callback
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 09:29:43PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote: On Thu, 09/21 16:17, Manos Pitsidianakis wrote: BlockDriverState has a bdrv_do_drain() callback but no equivalent for the end s/bdrv_do_drain/bdrv_co_drain/ of the drain. The throttle driver (block/throttle.c) needs a way to mark the end of the drain in order to toggle io_limits_disabled correctly, thus bdrv_co_drain_end is needed. Signed-off-by: Manos Pitsidianakis --- include/block/block_int.h | 6 ++ block/io.c| 48 +-- 2 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/block/block_int.h b/include/block/block_int.h index ba4c383393..21950cfda3 100644 --- a/include/block/block_int.h +++ b/include/block/block_int.h @@ -356,8 +356,14 @@ struct BlockDriver { /** * Drain and stop any internal sources of requests in the driver, and * remain so until next I/O callback (e.g. bdrv_co_writev) is called. This line needs update too, maybe: /** * bdrv_co_drain drains and stops any ... and remain so until * bdrv_co_drain_end is called. + * + * The callbacks are called at the beginning and ending of the drain + * respectively. They should be implemented if the driver needs to e.g. As implied by above change, should we explicitly require "should both be implemented"? It may not be technically required, but I think is cleaner and easier to reason about. It might imply to someone that there's an assert(drv->bdrv_co_drain_begin && drv->bdrv_co_drain_end) somewhere unless you state they don't have to be implemented at the same time. How about we be completely explicit: bdrv_co_drain_begin is called if implemented in the beggining of a drain operation to drain and stop any internal sources of requests in the driver. bdrv_co_drain_end is called if implemented at the end of the drain. They should be used by the driver to e.g. manage scheduled I/O requests, or toggle an internal state. After the end of the drain new requests will continue normally. I hope this is easier for a reader to understand! + * manage scheduled I/O requests, or toggle an internal state. After an s/After an/After a/ + * bdrv_co_drain_end() invocation new requests will continue normally. */ void coroutine_fn (*bdrv_co_drain)(BlockDriverState *bs); +void coroutine_fn (*bdrv_co_drain_end)(BlockDriverState *bs); void (*bdrv_add_child)(BlockDriverState *parent, BlockDriverState *child, Error **errp); diff --git a/block/io.c b/block/io.c index 4378ae4c7d..b0a10ad3ef 100644 --- a/block/io.c +++ b/block/io.c @@ -153,6 +153,7 @@ typedef struct { Coroutine *co; BlockDriverState *bs; bool done; +bool begin; } BdrvCoDrainData; static void coroutine_fn bdrv_drain_invoke_entry(void *opaque) @@ -160,18 +161,23 @@ static void coroutine_fn bdrv_drain_invoke_entry(void *opaque) BdrvCoDrainData *data = opaque; BlockDriverState *bs = data->bs; -bs->drv->bdrv_co_drain(bs); +if (data->begin) { +bs->drv->bdrv_co_drain(bs); +} else { +bs->drv->bdrv_co_drain_end(bs); +} /* Set data->done before reading bs->wakeup. */ atomic_mb_set(&data->done, true); bdrv_wakeup(bs); } -static void bdrv_drain_invoke(BlockDriverState *bs) +static void bdrv_drain_invoke(BlockDriverState *bs, bool begin) { -BdrvCoDrainData data = { .bs = bs, .done = false }; +BdrvCoDrainData data = { .bs = bs, .done = false, .begin = begin}; -if (!bs->drv || !bs->drv->bdrv_co_drain) { +if (!bs->drv || (begin && !bs->drv->bdrv_co_drain) || +(!begin && !bs->drv->bdrv_co_drain_end)) { return; } @@ -180,15 +186,16 @@ static void bdrv_drain_invoke(BlockDriverState *bs) BDRV_POLL_WHILE(bs, !data.done); } -static bool bdrv_drain_recurse(BlockDriverState *bs) +static bool bdrv_drain_recurse(BlockDriverState *bs, bool begin) { BdrvChild *child, *tmp; bool waited; -waited = BDRV_POLL_WHILE(bs, atomic_read(&bs->in_flight) > 0); - /* Ensure any pending metadata writes are submitted to bs->file. */ -bdrv_drain_invoke(bs); +bdrv_drain_invoke(bs, begin); + +/* Wait for drained requests to finish */ +waited = BDRV_POLL_WHILE(bs, atomic_read(&bs->in_flight) > 0); QLIST_FOREACH_SAFE(child, &bs->children, next, tmp) { BlockDriverState *bs = child->bs; @@ -205,7 +212,7 @@ static bool bdrv_drain_recurse(BlockDriverState *bs) */ bdrv_ref(bs); } -waited |= bdrv_drain_recurse(bs); +waited |= bdrv_drain_recurse(bs, begin); if (in_main_loop) { bdrv_unref(bs); } @@ -221,12 +228,18 @@ static void bdrv_co_drain_bh_cb(void *opaque) BlockDriverState *bs = data->bs; bdrv_dec_in_flight(bs); -bdrv_drained_begin(bs); +if (data->begin) { +bdrv_drained_begin(bs); +}
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/3] block: add bdrv_co_drain_end callback
On Thu, 09/21 18:39, Manos Pitsidianakis wrote: > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 09:29:43PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote: > > On Thu, 09/21 16:17, Manos Pitsidianakis wrote: > > > BlockDriverState has a bdrv_do_drain() callback but no equivalent for the > > > end > > > > s/bdrv_do_drain/bdrv_co_drain/ > > > > > of the drain. The throttle driver (block/throttle.c) needs a way to mark > > > the > > > end of the drain in order to toggle io_limits_disabled correctly, thus > > > bdrv_co_drain_end is needed. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Manos Pitsidianakis > > > --- > > > include/block/block_int.h | 6 ++ > > > block/io.c| 48 > > > +-- > > > 2 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/include/block/block_int.h b/include/block/block_int.h > > > index ba4c383393..21950cfda3 100644 > > > --- a/include/block/block_int.h > > > +++ b/include/block/block_int.h > > > @@ -356,8 +356,14 @@ struct BlockDriver { > > > /** > > > * Drain and stop any internal sources of requests in the driver, and > > > * remain so until next I/O callback (e.g. bdrv_co_writev) is called. > > > > This line needs update too, maybe: > > > > /** > >* bdrv_co_drain drains and stops any ... and remain so until > >* bdrv_co_drain_end is called. > > > > > + * > > > + * The callbacks are called at the beginning and ending of the drain > > > + * respectively. They should be implemented if the driver needs to > > > e.g. > > > > As implied by above change, should we explicitly require "should both be > > implemented"? It may not be technically required, but I think is cleaner and > > easier to reason about. > > > > It might imply to someone that there's an assert(drv->bdrv_co_drain_begin && > drv->bdrv_co_drain_end) somewhere unless you state they don't have to be > implemented at the same time. How about we be completely explicit: > > bdrv_co_drain_begin is called if implemented in the beggining of a > drain operation to drain and stop any internal sources of requests in > the driver. > bdrv_co_drain_end is called if implemented at the end of the drain. > > They should be used by the driver to e.g. manage scheduled I/O > requests, or toggle an internal state. After the end of the drain new > requests will continue normally. > > I hope this is easier for a reader to understand! I don't like the inconsistent semantics of when the drained section ends, if we allow drivers to implement bdrv_co_drain_begin but omit bdrv_co_drained_end. Currently the point where the section ends is, as said in the comment, when next I/O callback is invoked. Now we are adding the explicit ".bdrv_co_drain_end" into the fomular, if we still keep the previous convention, the interface contract is just mixed of two things for no good reason. I don't think it's technically necessary. Let's just add the assert: assert(!!drv->bdrv_co_drain_begin == !!bdrv_co_drain_end); in bdrv_drain_invoke, add a comment here, then add an empty .bdrv_co_drain_end in qed. Fam
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/3] block: add bdrv_co_drain_end callback
Am 22.09.2017 um 04:30 hat Fam Zheng geschrieben: > On Thu, 09/21 18:39, Manos Pitsidianakis wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 09:29:43PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote: > > > On Thu, 09/21 16:17, Manos Pitsidianakis wrote: > > It might imply to someone that there's an assert(drv->bdrv_co_drain_begin && > > drv->bdrv_co_drain_end) somewhere unless you state they don't have to be > > implemented at the same time. How about we be completely explicit: > > > > bdrv_co_drain_begin is called if implemented in the beggining of a > > drain operation to drain and stop any internal sources of requests in > > the driver. > > bdrv_co_drain_end is called if implemented at the end of the drain. > > > > They should be used by the driver to e.g. manage scheduled I/O > > requests, or toggle an internal state. After the end of the drain new > > requests will continue normally. > > > > I hope this is easier for a reader to understand! > > I don't like the inconsistent semantics of when the drained section > ends, if we allow drivers to implement bdrv_co_drain_begin but omit > bdrv_co_drained_end. Currently the point where the section ends is, > as said in the comment, when next I/O callback is invoked. Now we are > adding the explicit ".bdrv_co_drain_end" into the fomular, if we still > keep the previous convention, the interface contract is just mixed of > two things for no good reason. I don't think it's technically > necessary. We don't keep the convention with the next I/O callback. We just allow drivers to omit an empty implementation of either callback, which seems to be a very sensible default to me. > Let's just add the assert: > > assert(!!drv->bdrv_co_drain_begin == !!bdrv_co_drain_end); > > in bdrv_drain_invoke, add a comment here I'm not in favour of this, but if we do want to have it, wouldn't bdrv_register() be a much better place for the assertion? > then add an empty .bdrv_co_drain_end in qed. If you need empty functions anywhere, it's a sign that we have a bad default behaviour. Kevin
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/3] block: add bdrv_co_drain_end callback
On Fri, 09/22 13:03, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 22.09.2017 um 04:30 hat Fam Zheng geschrieben: > > On Thu, 09/21 18:39, Manos Pitsidianakis wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 09:29:43PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote: > > > > On Thu, 09/21 16:17, Manos Pitsidianakis wrote: > > > It might imply to someone that there's an assert(drv->bdrv_co_drain_begin > > > && > > > drv->bdrv_co_drain_end) somewhere unless you state they don't have to be > > > implemented at the same time. How about we be completely explicit: > > > > > > bdrv_co_drain_begin is called if implemented in the beggining of a > > > drain operation to drain and stop any internal sources of requests in > > > the driver. > > > bdrv_co_drain_end is called if implemented at the end of the drain. > > > > > > They should be used by the driver to e.g. manage scheduled I/O > > > requests, or toggle an internal state. After the end of the drain new > > > requests will continue normally. > > > > > > I hope this is easier for a reader to understand! > > > > I don't like the inconsistent semantics of when the drained section > > ends, if we allow drivers to implement bdrv_co_drain_begin but omit > > bdrv_co_drained_end. Currently the point where the section ends is, > > as said in the comment, when next I/O callback is invoked. Now we are > > adding the explicit ".bdrv_co_drain_end" into the fomular, if we still > > keep the previous convention, the interface contract is just mixed of > > two things for no good reason. I don't think it's technically > > necessary. > > We don't keep the convention with the next I/O callback. We just allow > drivers to omit an empty implementation of either callback, which seems > to be a very sensible default to me. > OK, I'm fine with this. Fam