qemu-devel.nongnu.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Denis V. Lunev" <den@openvz.org>
To: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>, Jeff Cody <jcody@redhat.com>,
	Anton Nefedov <anton.nefedov@virtuozzo.com>,
	Max Reitz <mreitz@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/1] mirror: restore offset after zeroing out the image
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 20:33:22 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2cc9d5f9-9a3c-dc90-d377-8cc676f4f147@openvz.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <33cf3518-bf30-88fa-5fb5-17d9ddff503d@redhat.com>

On 01/30/2017 08:16 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 01/30/2017 04:22 AM, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
>> If explicit zeroing out before mirroring is required for the target image,
>> it moves the block job offset counter to EOF, then offset and len counters
>> count the image size twice.
>>
>> There is no harm but confusing stats (e.g. for 1G image the completion
>> counter starts from 1G and increases to 2G)
>>
>> The patch fixed that problem by resetting the offset counter.
> Counters are explicitly documented NOT tied to disk length; they are
> merely estimates of proportional completion.  I'm not sure if this makes
> the numbers jump backwards from the observer's viewpoint, but if you can
> ever spot 1g/1g right before rewinding to 0g/1g (where pre-patch could
> see 1g/2g), then that is a reason to not take this patch.  On the other
> hand, your argument that the pre-patch behavior progressing towards 2g
> has a very fast progression from 0-1g/2g, and then a much slower
> 1g-2g/2g, which makes the estimate of percent completion skewed, while a
> newer progression of 0-1g/1g is more realistic, may have some merit.
>
> I'm not sold on this patch yet, but stronger arguments in the commit
> message may sway me.
>
>> +++ b/tests/qemu-iotests/094.out
>> @@ -3,9 +3,9 @@ Formatting 'TEST_DIR/t.IMGFMT', fmt=IMGFMT size=67108864
>>  Formatting 'TEST_DIR/source.IMGFMT', fmt=IMGFMT size=67108864
>>  {"return": {}}
>>  {"return": {}}
>> -{"timestamp": {"seconds":  TIMESTAMP, "microseconds":  TIMESTAMP}, "event": "BLOCK_JOB_READY", "data": {"device": "src", "len": 67108864, "offset": 67108864, "speed": 0, "type": "mirror"}}
>> +{"timestamp": {"seconds":  TIMESTAMP, "microseconds":  TIMESTAMP}, "event": "BLOCK_JOB_READY", "data": {"device": "src", "len": 0, "offset": 0, "speed": 0, "type": "mirror"}}
>>  {"return": {}}
> This part of the change is scary - a ready event showing 0/0 HAS been
> known to confuse libvirt in the past.  Qemu should NEVER advertise a
> ready event with 0/0, it should at least be 1/1 (because of the number
> of clients that have workarounds to deal with older qemu behavior on 0/0
> and which might misbehave if we ever issue that again).
>
>> -{"timestamp": {"seconds":  TIMESTAMP, "microseconds":  TIMESTAMP}, "event": "BLOCK_JOB_COMPLETED", "data": {"device": "src", "len": 67108864, "offset": 67108864, "speed": 0, "type": "mirror"}}
>> +{"timestamp": {"seconds":  TIMESTAMP, "microseconds":  TIMESTAMP}, "event": "BLOCK_JOB_COMPLETED", "data": {"device": "src", "len": 0, "offset": 0, "speed": 0, "type": "mirror"}}
> So NACK to the patch as currently written, but not necessarily to the
> idea if you can give better progress numbers and never reach the state
> of BLOCK_JOB_READY and BLOCK_JOB_COMPLETED with a 0/0 length/offset.
>
ok. fair enough. Thank you for the review.

Will it be better to (somehow) skip progressing below using
some condition during mirror_dirty_init() stage?

static void mirror_iteration_done(MirrorOp *op, int ret)
{
    .....

    if (ret >= 0) {
        if (s->cow_bitmap) {
            bitmap_set(s->cow_bitmap, chunk_num, nb_chunks);
        }
        s->common.offset += (uint64_t)op->nb_sectors * BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE;
<---- specifically this progressing
    }

Den

  reply	other threads:[~2017-01-30 17:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-01-30 10:22 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/1] mirror: restore offset after zeroing out the image Denis V. Lunev
2017-01-30 17:16 ` Eric Blake
2017-01-30 17:33   ` Denis V. Lunev [this message]
2017-01-30 18:10     ` Anton Nefedov

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=2cc9d5f9-9a3c-dc90-d377-8cc676f4f147@openvz.org \
    --to=den@openvz.org \
    --cc=anton.nefedov@virtuozzo.com \
    --cc=eblake@redhat.com \
    --cc=jcody@redhat.com \
    --cc=kwolf@redhat.com \
    --cc=mreitz@redhat.com \
    --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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).