From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:42093) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QoGdE-0005Xy-Jt for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 11:11:45 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QoGdD-00026p-Ap for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 11:11:44 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:54832) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QoGdC-00022V-BS for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 11:11:42 -0400 Message-ID: <4E38145C.2030503@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 17:14:36 +0200 From: Kevin Wolf MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1311680948-7648-1-git-send-email-kwolf@redhat.com> <4E38084C.6010601@redhat.com> <4E380E9B.5090600@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/10] block: Coroutine support List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Frediano Ziglio Cc: stefanha@gmail.com, Avi Kivity , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Am 02.08.2011 16:55, schrieb Frediano Ziglio: > 2011/8/2 Kevin Wolf : >> Am 02.08.2011 16:23, schrieb Avi Kivity: >>> On 07/26/2011 02:48 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote: >>>> Depends on Stefan's latest coroutine patches. This series makes qcow and qcow2 >>>> take advantage of the new coroutine infrastructure. Both formats used >>>> synchronous operations for accessing their metadata and blocked the guest CPU >>>> during that time. With coroutines, the I/O will happen asynchronously in the >>>> background and the CPU won't be blocked any more. >>>> >>> >>> Do you plan to convert qcow2 to a fully synchronous design? >>> >>> IMO that will make it more maintainable. Cancellation will need some >>> thought, though. >> >> After this patch series, all interesting paths are free of callbacks (I >> assume this is what you mean by synchronous?). The only thing I can see >> that is left is qcow2_aio_flush. What is required are some cleanups that >> eliminate things that still look like AIO code, and yes, that's >> something that I want to have. >> >> Frediano has posted some patches which I haven't fully reviewed yet, but >> the qcow1 RFC he posted was definitely a step in the right direction. >> > > Did I send patches for qcow2? > I just rebased them with your last updates, I'll send them again. Yes, you did. I just haven't reviewed them yet. But assuming that you're basically doing the same as in qcow1, they are the right thing to do. Kevin