07.10.2019 18:27, Max Reitz wrote: > On 03.10.19 19:15, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: >> Currently total allocation for parallel requests to block-copy instance >> is unlimited. Let's limit it to 128 MiB. >> >> For now block-copy is used only in backup, so actually we limit total >> allocation for backup job. >> >> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsement...@virtuozzo.com> >> --- >> include/block/block-copy.h | 3 +++ >> block/block-copy.c | 5 +++++ >> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/include/block/block-copy.h b/include/block/block-copy.h >> index e2e135ff1b..bb666e7068 100644 >> --- a/include/block/block-copy.h >> +++ b/include/block/block-copy.h >> @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ >> #define BLOCK_COPY_H >> >> #include "block/block.h" >> +#include "qemu/co-shared-amount.h" >> >> typedef struct BlockCopyInFlightReq { >> int64_t start_byte; >> @@ -69,6 +70,8 @@ typedef struct BlockCopyState { >> */ >> ProgressResetCallbackFunc progress_reset_callback; >> void *progress_opaque; >> + >> + QemuCoSharedAmount *mem; >> } BlockCopyState; >> >> BlockCopyState *block_copy_state_new(BdrvChild *source, BdrvChild *target, >> diff --git a/block/block-copy.c b/block/block-copy.c >> index cc49d2345d..e700c20d0f 100644 >> --- a/block/block-copy.c >> +++ b/block/block-copy.c >> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ >> #include "qemu/units.h" >> >> #define BLOCK_COPY_MAX_COPY_RANGE (16 * MiB) >> +#define BLOCK_COPY_MAX_MEM (128 * MiB) >> >> static void coroutine_fn block_copy_wait_inflight_reqs(BlockCopyState *s, >> int64_t start, >> @@ -64,6 +65,7 @@ void block_copy_state_free(BlockCopyState *s) >> } >> >> bdrv_release_dirty_bitmap(s->source->bs, s->copy_bitmap); >> + qemu_co_shared_amount_free(s->mem); >> g_free(s); >> } >> >> @@ -95,6 +97,7 @@ BlockCopyState *block_copy_state_new(BdrvChild *source, >> BdrvChild *target, >> .cluster_size = cluster_size, >> .len = bdrv_dirty_bitmap_size(copy_bitmap), >> .write_flags = write_flags, >> + .mem = qemu_co_shared_amount_new(BLOCK_COPY_MAX_MEM), >> }; >> >> s->copy_range_size = QEMU_ALIGN_DOWN(max_transfer, cluster_size), >> @@ -316,7 +319,9 @@ int coroutine_fn block_copy(BlockCopyState *s, >> >> bdrv_reset_dirty_bitmap(s->copy_bitmap, start, chunk_end - start); >> >> + qemu_co_get_amount(s->mem, chunk_end - start); > > Now that I see it like this, maybe the name is too short. This sounds > like it was trying to get some amount of coroutines. > > Would “qemu_co_get_from_shared_amount” be too long? (Something like > qemu_co_sham_alloc() would be funny, but maybe not. :-) Or maybe > exactly because it”s funny.) >
hmm sham may be interpreted as shared memory, not only like shame.. And if we call it _alloc, the opposite should be _free, but how to distinguish it from freeing the whole object? Hmm, use create/destroy for the whole object maybe. May be, drop "qemu_" ? It's not very informative. Or may be drop "co_"?. I don't like shaming my shared amount :) May be, we should imagine, what are we allocating? May be balls? struct BallAllocator ball_allocator_create ball_allocator_destroy co_try_alloc_balls co_alloc_balls co_free_balls Or bars? Or which thing may be used for funny naming and to not intersect with existing concepts like memory? > >> ret = block_copy_do_copy(s, start, chunk_end, error_is_read); >> + qemu_co_put_amount(s->mem, chunk_end - start); >> if (ret < 0) { >> bdrv_set_dirty_bitmap(s->copy_bitmap, start, chunk_end - >> start); >> break; >> > > -- Best regards, Vladimir