Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-stable] [PATCH v7 0/8] block: Mirror discarded sectors
On Fri, 06/26 15:36, Alexandre DERUMIER wrote: Hi, There is no problem, the observasion by Andrey was just that qmp command takes a few minutes before returning, because he didn't apply https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-05/msg02511.html Is this patch already apply on the block tree ? With nfs as source storage, it's really slow currently (lseek slow + a lot of nfs ops). The patch is waiting for the next PULL in Jeff Cody's tree I think. Fam - Mail original - De: Fam Zheng f...@redhat.com À: pbonzini pbonz...@redhat.com Cc: Kevin Wolf kw...@redhat.com, qemu-bl...@nongnu.org, Jeff Cody jc...@redhat.com, qemu-devel qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-stable qemu-sta...@nongnu.org, stefanha stefa...@redhat.com, js...@redhat.com, wangxiaol...@ucloud.cn Envoyé: Jeudi 25 Juin 2015 12:45:38 Objet: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-stable] [PATCH v7 0/8] block: Mirror discarded sectors On Thu, 06/25 09:02, Fam Zheng wrote: On Wed, 06/24 19:01, Paolo Bonzini wrote: On 24/06/2015 11:08, Fam Zheng wrote: Stefan, The only controversial patches are the qmp/drive-mirror ones (1-3), while patches 4-8 are still useful on their own: they fix the mentioned crash and improve iotests. Shall we merge the second half (of course none of them depend on 1-3) now that softfreeze is approaching? Stefan, would you consider applying patches 4-8? Actually why not apply all of them? Even if blockdev-mirror is a superior interface in the long run, the current behavior of drive-mirror can cause images to balloon up to the full size, which is bad. Extending drive-mirror is okay IMHO for 2.4. Before we do that, Andrey Korolyov has reported a hang issue with unmap=true, I'll take a look at it today. There is no problem, the observasion by Andrey was just that qmp command takes a few minutes before returning, because he didn't apply https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-05/msg02511.html Fam
Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-stable] [PATCH v7 0/8] block: Mirror discarded sectors
With nfs as source storage, it's really slow currently (lseek slow + a lot of nfs ops). it's blocked around 30min for 300GB, with a raw file on a netapp san array through nfs. - Mail original - De: aderumier aderum...@odiso.com À: Fam Zheng f...@redhat.com Cc: Kevin Wolf kw...@redhat.com, qemu-bl...@nongnu.org, Jeff Cody jc...@redhat.com, qemu-devel qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-stable qemu-sta...@nongnu.org, stefanha stefa...@redhat.com, pbonzini pbonz...@redhat.com, js...@redhat.com, wangxiaol...@ucloud.cn Envoyé: Vendredi 26 Juin 2015 15:36:10 Objet: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-stable] [PATCH v7 0/8] block: Mirror discarded sectors Hi, There is no problem, the observasion by Andrey was just that qmp command takes a few minutes before returning, because he didn't apply https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-05/msg02511.html Is this patch already apply on the block tree ? With nfs as source storage, it's really slow currently (lseek slow + a lot of nfs ops). - Mail original - De: Fam Zheng f...@redhat.com À: pbonzini pbonz...@redhat.com Cc: Kevin Wolf kw...@redhat.com, qemu-bl...@nongnu.org, Jeff Cody jc...@redhat.com, qemu-devel qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-stable qemu-sta...@nongnu.org, stefanha stefa...@redhat.com, js...@redhat.com, wangxiaol...@ucloud.cn Envoyé: Jeudi 25 Juin 2015 12:45:38 Objet: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-stable] [PATCH v7 0/8] block: Mirror discarded sectors On Thu, 06/25 09:02, Fam Zheng wrote: On Wed, 06/24 19:01, Paolo Bonzini wrote: On 24/06/2015 11:08, Fam Zheng wrote: Stefan, The only controversial patches are the qmp/drive-mirror ones (1-3), while patches 4-8 are still useful on their own: they fix the mentioned crash and improve iotests. Shall we merge the second half (of course none of them depend on 1-3) now that softfreeze is approaching? Stefan, would you consider applying patches 4-8? Actually why not apply all of them? Even if blockdev-mirror is a superior interface in the long run, the current behavior of drive-mirror can cause images to balloon up to the full size, which is bad. Extending drive-mirror is okay IMHO for 2.4. Before we do that, Andrey Korolyov has reported a hang issue with unmap=true, I'll take a look at it today. There is no problem, the observasion by Andrey was just that qmp command takes a few minutes before returning, because he didn't apply https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-05/msg02511.html Fam
Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-stable] [PATCH v7 0/8] block: Mirror discarded sectors
Hi, There is no problem, the observasion by Andrey was just that qmp command takes a few minutes before returning, because he didn't apply https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-05/msg02511.html Is this patch already apply on the block tree ? With nfs as source storage, it's really slow currently (lseek slow + a lot of nfs ops). - Mail original - De: Fam Zheng f...@redhat.com À: pbonzini pbonz...@redhat.com Cc: Kevin Wolf kw...@redhat.com, qemu-bl...@nongnu.org, Jeff Cody jc...@redhat.com, qemu-devel qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-stable qemu-sta...@nongnu.org, stefanha stefa...@redhat.com, js...@redhat.com, wangxiaol...@ucloud.cn Envoyé: Jeudi 25 Juin 2015 12:45:38 Objet: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-stable] [PATCH v7 0/8] block: Mirror discarded sectors On Thu, 06/25 09:02, Fam Zheng wrote: On Wed, 06/24 19:01, Paolo Bonzini wrote: On 24/06/2015 11:08, Fam Zheng wrote: Stefan, The only controversial patches are the qmp/drive-mirror ones (1-3), while patches 4-8 are still useful on their own: they fix the mentioned crash and improve iotests. Shall we merge the second half (of course none of them depend on 1-3) now that softfreeze is approaching? Stefan, would you consider applying patches 4-8? Actually why not apply all of them? Even if blockdev-mirror is a superior interface in the long run, the current behavior of drive-mirror can cause images to balloon up to the full size, which is bad. Extending drive-mirror is okay IMHO for 2.4. Before we do that, Andrey Korolyov has reported a hang issue with unmap=true, I'll take a look at it today. There is no problem, the observasion by Andrey was just that qmp command takes a few minutes before returning, because he didn't apply https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-05/msg02511.html Fam
Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-stable] [PATCH v7 0/8] block: Mirror discarded sectors
On Thu, 06/25 09:02, Fam Zheng wrote: On Wed, 06/24 19:01, Paolo Bonzini wrote: On 24/06/2015 11:08, Fam Zheng wrote: Stefan, The only controversial patches are the qmp/drive-mirror ones (1-3), while patches 4-8 are still useful on their own: they fix the mentioned crash and improve iotests. Shall we merge the second half (of course none of them depend on 1-3) now that softfreeze is approaching? Stefan, would you consider applying patches 4-8? Actually why not apply all of them? Even if blockdev-mirror is a superior interface in the long run, the current behavior of drive-mirror can cause images to balloon up to the full size, which is bad. Extending drive-mirror is okay IMHO for 2.4. Before we do that, Andrey Korolyov has reported a hang issue with unmap=true, I'll take a look at it today. There is no problem, the observasion by Andrey was just that qmp command takes a few minutes before returning, because he didn't apply https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-05/msg02511.html Fam
Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-stable] [PATCH v7 0/8] block: Mirror discarded sectors
On Thu, 06/11 16:29, Fam Zheng wrote: On Mon, 06/08 14:02, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 01:56:06PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote: v7: Fix the lost assignment of s-unmap. v6: Fix pnum in bdrv_get_block_status_above. [Paolo] v5: Rewrite patch 1. Address Eric's comments on patch 3. Add Eric's rev-by to patches 2 4. Check BDRV_BLOCK_DATA in patch 3. [Paolo] This fixes the mirror assert failure reported by wangxiaolong: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-04/msg04458.html The direct cause is that hbitmap code couldn't handle unset of bits *after* iterator's current position. We could fix that, but the bdrv_reset_dirty() call is more questionable: Before, if guest discarded some sectors during migration, it could see different data after moving to dest side, depending on block backends of the src and the dest. This is IMO worse than mirroring the actual reading as done in this series, because we don't know what the guest is doing. For example if a guest first issues WRITE SAME to wipe out the area then issues UNMAP to discard it, just to get rid of some sensitive data completely, we may miss both operations and leave stale data on dest image. Fam Zheng (8): block: Add bdrv_get_block_status_above qmp: Add optional bool unmap to drive-mirror mirror: Do zero write on target if sectors not allocated block: Fix dirty bitmap in bdrv_co_discard block: Remove bdrv_reset_dirty qemu-iotests: Make block job methods common qemu-iotests: Add test case for mirror with unmap iotests: Use event_wait in wait_ready block.c | 12 block/io.c| 60 ++- block/mirror.c| 28 +++--- blockdev.c| 5 hmp.c | 2 +- include/block/block.h | 4 +++ include/block/block_int.h | 4 +-- qapi/block-core.json | 8 +- qmp-commands.hx | 3 ++ tests/qemu-iotests/041| 66 ++- tests/qemu-iotests/132| 59 ++ tests/qemu-iotests/132.out| 5 tests/qemu-iotests/group | 1 + tests/qemu-iotests/iotests.py | 23 +++ 14 files changed, 196 insertions(+), 84 deletions(-) create mode 100644 tests/qemu-iotests/132 create mode 100644 tests/qemu-iotests/132.out -- 2.4.2 Thanks, applied to my block tree: https://github.com/stefanha/qemu/commits/block Stefan, The only controversial patches are the qmp/drive-mirror ones (1-3), while patches 4-8 are still useful on their own: they fix the mentioned crash and improve iotests. Shall we merge the second half (of course none of them depend on 1-3) now that softfreeze is approaching? Stefan, would you consider applying patches 4-8? Fam
Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-stable] [PATCH v7 0/8] block: Mirror discarded sectors
On Wed, 06/24 19:01, Paolo Bonzini wrote: On 24/06/2015 11:08, Fam Zheng wrote: Stefan, The only controversial patches are the qmp/drive-mirror ones (1-3), while patches 4-8 are still useful on their own: they fix the mentioned crash and improve iotests. Shall we merge the second half (of course none of them depend on 1-3) now that softfreeze is approaching? Stefan, would you consider applying patches 4-8? Actually why not apply all of them? Even if blockdev-mirror is a superior interface in the long run, the current behavior of drive-mirror can cause images to balloon up to the full size, which is bad. Extending drive-mirror is okay IMHO for 2.4. Before we do that, Andrey Korolyov has reported a hang issue with unmap=true, I'll take a look at it today. Fam
Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-stable] [PATCH v7 0/8] block: Mirror discarded sectors
On 24/06/2015 11:08, Fam Zheng wrote: Stefan, The only controversial patches are the qmp/drive-mirror ones (1-3), while patches 4-8 are still useful on their own: they fix the mentioned crash and improve iotests. Shall we merge the second half (of course none of them depend on 1-3) now that softfreeze is approaching? Stefan, would you consider applying patches 4-8? Actually why not apply all of them? Even if blockdev-mirror is a superior interface in the long run, the current behavior of drive-mirror can cause images to balloon up to the full size, which is bad. Extending drive-mirror is okay IMHO for 2.4. Paolo
