From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53541)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1b5DEC-0000WJ-Ey
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 24 May 2016 10:22:39 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1b5DE8-0005Ys-Bs
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 24 May 2016 10:22:36 -0400
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 16:22:22 +0200
From: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20160524142222.GG7091@noname.redhat.com>
References: <1464097151-19479-1-git-send-email-pl@kamp.de>
	<ae091ece-2e70-6c45-c11e-09b489c3a78b@redhat.com>
	<5744601B.9040905@kamp.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5744601B.9040905@kamp.de>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] block/io: optimize bdrv_co_pwritev for
 small requests
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Peter Lieven <pl@kamp.de>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, qemu-block@nongnu.org, famz@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, mreitz@redhat.com, stefanha@redhat.com

Am 2.05.2016 um 16:07 hat Peter Lieven geschrieben:
> Am 24.05.2016 um 15:59 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
> >
> >On 24/05/2016 15:39, Peter Lieven wrote:
> >>          bytes += offset & (align - 1);
> >>          offset = offset & ~(align - 1);
> >Because the low bits have been masked away from offset and added to bytes,
> >
> >>+
> >>+        /* if head and tail fall into the same alignment
> >>+         * we can omit the second read as it would read
> >>+         * the same block again */
> >>+        if ((offset + bytes) & (align - 1) &&
> >... the first part is just "bytes & (align - 1)"...
> >
> >>+            offset / align == (offset + bytes) / align) {
> >... and the second part is just "bytes < align" (you can distribute
> >division over addition because offset / align has no reminder, and
> >simplify to "0 == bytes / align").
> >
> >Putting it together, it becomes "bytes > 0 && bytes < align", or even
> >"bytes < align".
> 
> Oh, thanks, and the if block also too complicated. If I am right it should
> collapse to:
> 
>         if (bytes < align) {
>             qemu_iovec_add(&local_qiov, head_buf + bytes,
>                            align - bytes);
>             bytes = align;
>         }
> 
> Right?

Looks good to me.

Another mostly unrelated thing I just noticed while looking at this
code: Should we assert(is_power_of_2(align)) somewhere?

Kevin