Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Improve qemu-nbd performance by 4400 %

[Laurent Vivier <Laurent@Vivier.EU>]

>Am 16.09.2010 20:54, schrieb Laurent Vivier:
>> This patch allows to reduce the boot time from an NBD server from 225 
>seconds to
>> 5 seconds (time between the "boot cd:0" and the kernel init) for the
>> following command lines:
>> 
>> ./qemu-nbd -t ../ISO/debian-500-powerpc-netinst.iso
>> and
>> ./ppc-softmmu/qemu-system-ppc -cdrom nbd:localhost:1024
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Laurent Vivier <laurent@vivier.eu>
>
>I agree with Stefan. It's good to have a description of the results in
>the commit message, but describing what has actually changed from a
>technical perspective would be helpful, too.

OK.

>> ---
>>  nbd.c |   20 +++++++++++++++-----
>>  1 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/nbd.c b/nbd.c
>> index 011b50f..5d7c758 100644
>> --- a/nbd.c
>> +++ b/nbd.c
>> @@ -655,7 +655,7 @@ int nbd_trip(BlockDriverState *bs, int csock, off_t 
>size, uint64_t dev_offset,
>>  	if (nbd_receive_request(csock, &request) == -1)
>>  		return -1;
>>  
>> -	if (request.len > data_size) {
>> +	if (request.len + sizeof(struct nbd_reply) > data_size) {
>>  		LOG("len (%u) is larger than max len (%u)",
>>  		    request.len, data_size);
>>  		errno = EINVAL;
>> @@ -687,7 +687,8 @@ int nbd_trip(BlockDriverState *bs, int csock, off_t 
>size, uint64_t dev_offset,
>>  	case NBD_CMD_READ:
>>  		TRACE("Request type is READ");
>>  
>> -		if (bdrv_read(bs, (request.from + dev_offset) / 512, data,
>> +		if (bdrv_read(bs, (request.from + dev_offset) / 512,
>> +			      data + sizeof(struct nbd_reply),
>>  			      request.len / 512) == -1) {
>>  			LOG("reading from file failed");
>>  			errno = EINVAL;
>> @@ -697,12 +698,21 @@ int nbd_trip(BlockDriverState *bs, int csock, off_t 
>size, uint64_t dev_offset,
>>  
>>  		TRACE("Read %u byte(s)", request.len);
>>  
>> -		if (nbd_send_reply(csock, &reply) == -1)
>> -			return -1;
>> +		/* Reply
>> +		   [ 0 ..  3]    magic   (NBD_REPLY_MAGIC)
>> +		   [ 4 ..  7]    error   (0 == no error)
>> +		   [ 7 .. 15]    handle
>> +		 */
>> +
>> +		cpu_to_be32w((uint32_t*)data, NBD_REPLY_MAGIC);
>> +		cpu_to_be32w((uint32_t*)(data + 4), reply.error);
>> +		cpu_to_be64w((uint64_t*)(data + 8), reply.handle);
>
>Hm, if I understand this right, you rely on the compiler padding out
>structs here. You reserved sizeof(struct nbd_reply) bytes and the struct
>is defined like this:
>
>struct nbd_reply {
>    uint32_t error;
>    uint64_t handle;
>};
>
>So isn't it pure luck that the compiler does the right thing and gives
>you 16 bytes? If you want to use the struct for this, you should add a
>uint32_t magic to it and make it packed.
>

Yes, it's pure luck, I will add a NBD_REPLY_SIZE defined to 16 and will replace the sizeof() by it.

Regards,
Laurent


-- 
--------------------- Laurent@vivier.eu  ---------------------
"Tout ce qui est impossible reste à accomplir"    Jules Verne
"Things are only impossible until they're not" Jean-Luc Picard