Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH V2] block/io: optimize bdrv_co_pwritev for small requests

[Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>]

Am 27.05.2016 um 02:36 hat Fam Zheng geschrieben:
> On Thu, 05/26 11:20, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 26/05/2016 10:30, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > >> > 
> > >> > This doesn't look too wrong...  Should the right sequence of events be
> > >> > head/after_head or head/after_tail?  It's probably simplest to just emit
> > >> > all four events.
> > > I've no idea. (That's why I leaned towards fixing the test case).
> > 
> > Well, fixing the testcase means knowing what events should be emitted.
> > 
> > QEMU with Peter's patch emits head/after_head.  If the right one is
> > head/after_tail, _both QEMU and the testcase_ need to be adjusted.  Your
> > patch keeps the backwards-compatible route.
> 
> Yes, I mean I was not very convinced in tweaking the events at all: each pair
> of them has been emitted around bdrv_aligned_preadv(), and the new branch
> doesn't do it anymore. So I don't see a reason to add events here.

Yes, if you can assume that anyone who uses the debug events know
exactly what the code looks like, adding the events here is pointless
because TAIL, AFTER_TAIL and for the greatest part also AFTER_HEAD are
essentially the same then.

Having TAIL before the qiov change and AFTER_TAIL afterwards doesn't
make any difference, they could (and should) be called immediately one
after another if we wanted to keep the behaviour.

I would agree that we should take a look at the test case and what it
actually wants to achieve before we can decide whether AFTER_HEAD and
TAIL/AFTER_TAIL would be the same (the former could trigger earlier if
there are two requests and only one is unaligned at the tail). Maybe we
even need to extend the test case now so that both paths (explicit read
of the tail and the shortcut) are covered.

Kevin