* Fwd: xentop reporting zero written sectors [not found] <CAE1-PRdq9BWjTTHPPBPvESr-ULcdjHgPMTABcCO6+wCLJ1UYog@mail.gmail.com> @ 2011-10-10 15:16 ` Andy Burns 2011-10-10 15:29 ` Ian Campbell 2011-10-10 16:31 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk 0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Andy Burns @ 2011-10-10 15:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: xen-devel No response in xen-users, asking developers .... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Just moving a chunk of files from one filesysstem on xvba to another on xvdb, and was monitoring with xentop as it was taking longer than expected. The VBD_RD and VBD_WR counters were both clocking-up as expected, as was the VBD_RSECT counter, but the VBD_WSECT counter was stuck on zero, I toggled on the individual VBD device counters and these showed the same (with the RD and WR counters correctly split between my source and destination disks) Is this a long standing "feature" that I've never noticed before or a problem that should be reported? Using the following packages from Fedora 16 beta xen.x86_64 4.1.1-3.fc16 en-hypervisor.x86_64 4.1.1-3.fc16 xen-libs.x86_64 4.1.1-3.fc16 xen-licenses.x86_64 4.1.1-3.fc16 xen-runtime.x86_64 4.1.1-3.fc16 kernel.x86_64 3.1.0-0.rc8.git0.0.fc16 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Fwd: xentop reporting zero written sectors 2011-10-10 15:16 ` Fwd: xentop reporting zero written sectors Andy Burns @ 2011-10-10 15:29 ` Ian Campbell 2011-10-10 18:02 ` Andy Burns 2011-10-10 16:31 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk 1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Ian Campbell @ 2011-10-10 15:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andy Burns; +Cc: xen-devel On Mon, 2011-10-10 at 16:16 +0100, Andy Burns wrote: > No response in xen-users, asking developers .... > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > Just moving a chunk of files from one filesysstem on xvba to another > on xvdb, and was monitoring with xentop as it was taking longer than > expected. > > The VBD_RD and VBD_WR counters were both clocking-up as expected, as > was the VBD_RSECT counter, but the VBD_WSECT counter was stuck on > zero, I toggled on the individual VBD device counters and these showed > the same (with the RD and WR counters correctly split between my > source and destination disks) > > Is this a long standing "feature" that I've never noticed before or a > problem that should be reported? How would it be a feature? Scrobbling around under tools/xenstat these statistics appear to be read from /sys/bus/xen-backend/devices/<vbd>/wr_sect (likewise rd_sect, wr_req etc etc). Can you see all of those and do the numbers appear to be doing the right thing? This will indicate whether this is an issue with the kernel producing the numbers or the tools consuming them. Ian. > > Using the following packages from Fedora 16 beta > > xen.x86_64 4.1.1-3.fc16 > en-hypervisor.x86_64 4.1.1-3.fc16 > xen-libs.x86_64 4.1.1-3.fc16 > xen-licenses.x86_64 4.1.1-3.fc16 > xen-runtime.x86_64 4.1.1-3.fc16 > kernel.x86_64 3.1.0-0.rc8.git0.0.fc16 > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Fwd: xentop reporting zero written sectors 2011-10-10 15:29 ` Ian Campbell @ 2011-10-10 18:02 ` Andy Burns 2011-10-10 19:26 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Andy Burns @ 2011-10-10 18:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: xen-devel On 10 October 2011 16:29, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com> wrote: > How would it be a feature? Sorry for the bug <-> feature sarcasm > Scrobbling around under tools/xenstat these statistics appear to be read > from /sys/bus/xen-backend/devices/<vbd>/wr_sect (likewise rd_sect, > wr_req etc etc). > Can you see all of those and do the numbers appear to be doing the right > thing? Yes, just to confirm what Konrad has spotted ... # cat /sys/bus/xen-backend/devices/*/statistics/wr_sect 0 0 0 # cat /sys/bus/xen-backend/devices/*/statistics/rd_sect 90313 125876 2546 I'll try the patch later, when I've finished pulling my hair out with a pci-passthrough issue! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Fwd: xentop reporting zero written sectors 2011-10-10 18:02 ` Andy Burns @ 2011-10-10 19:26 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk 0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk @ 2011-10-10 19:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andy Burns; +Cc: xen-devel On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 07:02:08PM +0100, Andy Burns wrote: > On 10 October 2011 16:29, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com> wrote: > > > How would it be a feature? > > Sorry for the bug <-> feature sarcasm > > > Scrobbling around under tools/xenstat these statistics appear to be read > > from /sys/bus/xen-backend/devices/<vbd>/wr_sect (likewise rd_sect, > > wr_req etc etc). > > Can you see all of those and do the numbers appear to be doing the right > > thing? > > Yes, just to confirm what Konrad has spotted ... > > # cat /sys/bus/xen-backend/devices/*/statistics/wr_sect > 0 > 0 > 0 > > # cat /sys/bus/xen-backend/devices/*/statistics/rd_sect > 90313 > 125876 > 2546 > > I'll try the patch later, when I've finished pulling my hair out with > a pci-passthrough issue! HVM or PV? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Fwd: xentop reporting zero written sectors 2011-10-10 15:16 ` Fwd: xentop reporting zero written sectors Andy Burns 2011-10-10 15:29 ` Ian Campbell @ 2011-10-10 16:31 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk 2011-10-11 7:49 ` Ian Campbell 2011-10-13 21:10 ` Andy Burns 1 sibling, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk @ 2011-10-10 16:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andy Burns; +Cc: xen-devel On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 04:16:04PM +0100, Andy Burns wrote: > No response in xen-users, asking developers .... > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > Just moving a chunk of files from one filesysstem on xvba to another > on xvdb, and was monitoring with xentop as it was taking longer than > expected. > > The VBD_RD and VBD_WR counters were both clocking-up as expected, as > was the VBD_RSECT counter, but the VBD_WSECT counter was stuck on > zero, I toggled on the individual VBD device counters and these showed > the same (with the RD and WR counters correctly split between my > source and destination disks) Huh. Imagine that! > > Is this a long standing "feature" that I've never noticed before or a > problem that should be reported? Must be a feature. We would never write code with bugs. Never :-) I think this new "feature" below will fix it for you: diff --git a/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c b/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c index 0bd7143..3e2ca68 100644 --- a/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c +++ b/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c @@ -778,7 +778,7 @@ static int dispatch_rw_block_io(struct xen_blkif *blkif, if (operation == READ) blkif->st_rd_sect += preq.nr_sects; - else if (operation == WRITE || operation == WRITE_FLUSH) + else if (operation == WRITE_ODIRECT || operation == WRITE_FLUSH) blkif->st_wr_sect += preq.nr_sects; return 0; Thanks for reporting it! ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Fwd: xentop reporting zero written sectors 2011-10-10 16:31 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk @ 2011-10-11 7:49 ` Ian Campbell 2011-10-11 15:47 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk 2011-10-13 21:10 ` Andy Burns 1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Ian Campbell @ 2011-10-11 7:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk; +Cc: Andy Burns, xen-devel On Mon, 2011-10-10 at 17:31 +0100, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 04:16:04PM +0100, Andy Burns wrote: > > No response in xen-users, asking developers .... > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > > Just moving a chunk of files from one filesysstem on xvba to another > > on xvdb, and was monitoring with xentop as it was taking longer than > > expected. > > > > The VBD_RD and VBD_WR counters were both clocking-up as expected, as > > was the VBD_RSECT counter, but the VBD_WSECT counter was stuck on > > zero, I toggled on the individual VBD device counters and these showed > > the same (with the RD and WR counters correctly split between my > > source and destination disks) > > Huh. Imagine that! > > > > Is this a long standing "feature" that I've never noticed before or a > > problem that should be reported? > > Must be a feature. We would never write code with bugs. Never :-) > > I think this new "feature" below will fix it for you: > > > diff --git a/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c b/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c > index 0bd7143..3e2ca68 100644 > --- a/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c > +++ b/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c > @@ -778,7 +778,7 @@ static int dispatch_rw_block_io(struct xen_blkif *blkif, > > if (operation == READ) > blkif->st_rd_sect += preq.nr_sects; > - else if (operation == WRITE || operation == WRITE_FLUSH) > + else if (operation == WRITE_ODIRECT || operation == WRITE_FLUSH) Would it be sane to key this off req->operation and BLKIF_OP_* instead of first encoding them as block layer operations and then decoding back again? The use of operation here just seems to be adding a layer of indirection which we don't want or need. Or maybe (operation & WRITE) instead of == ? Ian. > blkif->st_wr_sect += preq.nr_sects; > > return 0; > > > Thanks for reporting it! > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Fwd: xentop reporting zero written sectors 2011-10-11 7:49 ` Ian Campbell @ 2011-10-11 15:47 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk 0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk @ 2011-10-11 15:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ian Campbell; +Cc: Andy Burns, xen-devel On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 08:49:44AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Mon, 2011-10-10 at 17:31 +0100, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 04:16:04PM +0100, Andy Burns wrote: > > > No response in xen-users, asking developers .... > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > > > > Just moving a chunk of files from one filesysstem on xvba to another > > > on xvdb, and was monitoring with xentop as it was taking longer than > > > expected. > > > > > > The VBD_RD and VBD_WR counters were both clocking-up as expected, as > > > was the VBD_RSECT counter, but the VBD_WSECT counter was stuck on > > > zero, I toggled on the individual VBD device counters and these showed > > > the same (with the RD and WR counters correctly split between my > > > source and destination disks) > > > > Huh. Imagine that! > > > > > > Is this a long standing "feature" that I've never noticed before or a > > > problem that should be reported? > > > > Must be a feature. We would never write code with bugs. Never :-) > > > > I think this new "feature" below will fix it for you: > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c b/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c > > index 0bd7143..3e2ca68 100644 > > --- a/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c > > +++ b/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c > > @@ -778,7 +778,7 @@ static int dispatch_rw_block_io(struct xen_blkif *blkif, > > > > if (operation == READ) > > blkif->st_rd_sect += preq.nr_sects; > > - else if (operation == WRITE || operation == WRITE_FLUSH) > > + else if (operation == WRITE_ODIRECT || operation == WRITE_FLUSH) > > Would it be sane to key this off req->operation and BLKIF_OP_* instead > of first encoding them as block layer operations and then decoding back > again? The use of operation here just seems to be adding a layer of > indirection which we don't want or need. > > Or maybe (operation & WRITE) instead of == ? I am not really sure why we do all of those 'operation' thingies. I think I will do a lookup function that will do the proper lookup give it to the bio layer once it is required instead of doing this ... extra work. But lets do that in the next set of patches and just treat this one as a bug-fix. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Fwd: xentop reporting zero written sectors 2011-10-10 16:31 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk 2011-10-11 7:49 ` Ian Campbell @ 2011-10-13 21:10 ` Andy Burns 2011-10-14 0:20 ` Andy Burns 1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Andy Burns @ 2011-10-13 21:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk; +Cc: xen-devel On 10 October 2011 17:31, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com> wrote: > I think this new "feature" below will fix it for you: > > diff --git a/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c b/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c > index 0bd7143..3e2ca68 100644 > --- a/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c > +++ b/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c > @@ -778,7 +778,7 @@ static int dispatch_rw_block_io(struct xen_blkif *blkif, > > if (operation == READ) > blkif->st_rd_sect += preq.nr_sects; > - else if (operation == WRITE || operation == WRITE_FLUSH) > + else if (operation == WRITE_ODIRECT || operation == WRITE_FLUSH) > blkif->st_wr_sect += preq.nr_sects; > > return 0; What kernel version is that patch based on? It won't apply on top of 3.1.0-rc9 for me, but looks like the starting line number is 685 rather than 778 in Fedora's source ... but even by tweaking it I can't get rpmbuild to apply the patch :-( ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Fwd: xentop reporting zero written sectors 2011-10-13 21:10 ` Andy Burns @ 2011-10-14 0:20 ` Andy Burns 0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Andy Burns @ 2011-10-14 0:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: xen-devel On 13 October 2011 22:10, Andy Burns <xen.lists@burns.me.uk> wrote: > On 10 October 2011 17:31, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com> wrote: > >> I think this new "feature" below will fix it for you: > What kernel version is that patch based on? I did eventually build a kernel with a lightly tweaked version of that patch, to allow for Fedora's patched vanilla 3.0 plus rc9 patches my VBD_WSECT counters are now merricly clocking up, so feel free to add Acked-by: Andy Burns <andy@burns.net> --- a/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c --- b/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c @@ -685,7 +685,7 @@ if (operation == READ) blkif->st_rd_sect += preq.nr_sects; - else if (operation == WRITE || operation == WRITE_FLUSH) + else if (operation == WRITE_ODIRECT || operation == WRITE_FLUSH) blkif->st_wr_sect += preq.nr_sects; return 0; ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-10-14 0:20 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <CAE1-PRdq9BWjTTHPPBPvESr-ULcdjHgPMTABcCO6+wCLJ1UYog@mail.gmail.com>
2011-10-10 15:16 ` Fwd: xentop reporting zero written sectors Andy Burns
2011-10-10 15:29 ` Ian Campbell
2011-10-10 18:02 ` Andy Burns
2011-10-10 19:26 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2011-10-10 16:31 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2011-10-11 7:49 ` Ian Campbell
2011-10-11 15:47 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2011-10-13 21:10 ` Andy Burns
2011-10-14 0:20 ` Andy Burns
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.