All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
To: Fam Zheng <famz@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>, qemu-block@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] qemu-img: Speed up comparing empty/zero images
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 13:29:18 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5696431E.8000903@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1452674261-27904-1-git-send-email-famz@redhat.com>



On 13/01/2016 09:37, Fam Zheng wrote:
> Two empty raw files are always compared by actually reading data even if
> there is no data, because BDRV_BLOCK_ZERO is considered "allocated" in
> bdrv_is_allocated_above().  That is inefficient.
> 
> Use bdrv_get_block_status_above() for more information, and skip the
> consecutive zero sectors.
> 
> This brings a huge speed up in comparing sparse/empty raw images:
> 
>     $ qemu-img create a 1G
> 
>     $ time ~/build/master/bin/qemu-img compare a a
>     Images are identical.
> 
>     real    0m6.583s
>     user    0m0.191s
>     sys     0m6.367s
> 
>     $ time qemu-img compare a a
>     Images are identical.
> 
>     real    0m0.033s
>     user    0m0.003s
>     sys     0m0.031s
> 
> Signed-off-by: Fam Zheng <famz@redhat.com>
> ---
>  qemu-img.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
>  1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/qemu-img.c b/qemu-img.c
> index 3d48b4f..82f704f 100644
> --- a/qemu-img.c
> +++ b/qemu-img.c
> @@ -1074,28 +1074,50 @@ static int img_compare(int argc, char **argv)
>      }
>  
>      for (;;) {
> +        int64_t status1, status2;
>          nb_sectors = sectors_to_process(total_sectors, sector_num);
>          if (nb_sectors <= 0) {
>              break;
>          }
> -        allocated1 = bdrv_is_allocated_above(bs1, NULL, sector_num, nb_sectors,
> -                                             &pnum1);
> -        if (allocated1 < 0) {
> +        status1 = bdrv_get_block_status_above(bs1, NULL, sector_num,
> +                                              total_sectors1 - sector_num,
> +                                              &pnum1);
> +        if (status1 < 0) {
>              ret = 3;
>              error_report("Sector allocation test failed for %s", filename1);
>              goto out;
>          }
> +        allocated1 = status1 & BDRV_BLOCK_ALLOCATED;
>  
> -        allocated2 = bdrv_is_allocated_above(bs2, NULL, sector_num, nb_sectors,
> -                                             &pnum2);
> -        if (allocated2 < 0) {
> +        status2 = bdrv_get_block_status_above(bs2, NULL, sector_num,
> +                                              total_sectors2 - sector_num,
> +                                              &pnum2);
> +        if (status2 < 0) {
>              ret = 3;
>              error_report("Sector allocation test failed for %s", filename2);
>              goto out;
>          }
> -        nb_sectors = MIN(pnum1, pnum2);
> +        allocated2 = status2 & BDRV_BLOCK_ALLOCATED;
> +        if (pnum1) {
> +            nb_sectors = MIN(nb_sectors, pnum1);
> +        }
> +        if (pnum2) {
> +            nb_sectors = MIN(nb_sectors, pnum2);
> +        }
>  
> -        if (allocated1 == allocated2) {
> +        if (strict) {
> +            if ((status1 & ~BDRV_BLOCK_OFFSET_MASK) !=
> +                (status2 & ~BDRV_BLOCK_OFFSET_MASK)) {

This is not exactly the same definition as before, but if that's okay:

Reviewed-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>

> +                ret = 1;
> +                qprintf(quiet, "Strict mode: Offset %" PRId64
> +                        " block status mismatch!\n",
> +                        sectors_to_bytes(sector_num));
> +                goto out;
> +            }
> +        }
> +        if ((status1 & BDRV_BLOCK_ZERO) && (status2 & BDRV_BLOCK_ZERO)) {
> +            nb_sectors = MIN(pnum1, pnum2);
> +        } else if (allocated1 == allocated2) {
>              if (allocated1) {
>                  ret = blk_read(blk1, sector_num, buf1, nb_sectors);
>                  if (ret < 0) {
> @@ -1123,13 +1145,6 @@ static int img_compare(int argc, char **argv)
>                  }
>              }
>          } else {
> -            if (strict) {
> -                ret = 1;
> -                qprintf(quiet, "Strict mode: Offset %" PRId64
> -                        " allocation mismatch!\n",
> -                        sectors_to_bytes(sector_num));
> -                goto out;
> -            }
>  
>              if (allocated1) {
>                  ret = check_empty_sectors(blk1, sector_num, nb_sectors,
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2016-01-13 12:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-01-13  8:37 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] qemu-img: Speed up comparing empty/zero images Fam Zheng
2016-01-13 12:29 ` Paolo Bonzini [this message]
2016-01-18 13:32 ` Kevin Wolf

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=5696431E.8000903@redhat.com \
    --to=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=famz@redhat.com \
    --cc=kwolf@redhat.com \
    --cc=qemu-block@nongnu.org \
    --cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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.